TRADE TOPICS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 447, 16 February 1899, Page 18

TRADE TOPICS.

Still another temperance reformer coming to New Zealand ; for we must look upon General Booth as such, considering that one of the principal planks in the Salvation Army platform is abstention from tobacco and all alcoholic stimulants. The General’s tour commences in Dunedin, where he will appear on March 21 and 22. He will be in Auckland on April 1. Tommy Taylor, who poses as the leader of the Independents in the South, has taken for his motto, Seddon delenda est, and during the coming campaign proposes to devote himself especially to ministers, following them all over the country and replying to any addresses they may give. This proposal suggests the pursuing tactics of a yapping cur at the heels of a big Newfoundland. The larger dog may stand it for a while, but finally, his patience tried beyond all endurance, he will in all probability turn and, metaphorically speaking, rend his persecutor. Certain Sydney papers have been publishing obituaries of Mr J. Cleeland, formerly host of the Albion Hotel, Bourke Street, Melbourne. Mr Cleeland is still alive and well down Westernport way, and will read the notice of his death with a placid smile. —Melbourne Sportsman. We were ourselves led into the mistake of chronicling the supposed death of Mr Cleeland, but the word was sent to us by our Sydney correspondent. We are only pleased to find the genial and popular boniface is in the land of the living. Dicensing Acts the world over seem to be patched up abortions that very often contradict themselves, and are almost invariably unworkable in their entirety. The probable reason is that there is always a section of fanatical legislators who insist on tacking on a clause here and there that usually stultifies the complete Act. It has been said by a high legal authority in New Zealand that our Licensing Act has been made such a jumble, of that it is utterly incomprehensible to the ordinary lay mind, and judging from the following, which we take from the Melbourne Sportsman, things are as bad, if not worse, in Victoria Nothing tends to bring law and legislators more into contempt than oppressive and supremely stupid statutes like the Licensing Act. Its equal for crass blunders cannot be found the world over. On the ground of expediency alone Sir George Turner [is fully justified in asking Parliament to place a just and workable act on the Statute Book. In fact, there is no measure more important in the coming session. The Trade asks for it, and so do the people generally. The former has enormous vested interests, and deserve consideration. Not so the blatant prohibitionists, who represent only themselves, and whose only vested interests are their salaries. It was men of their stamp who brought law into contempt by getting the bar-door clause on the Statute Book.

The following case, which comes to us from Melbourne, shows that the defendant intends Sticking to his guns. We have nothing to say as to whether he is right or not, but we admire his pluck Mr Edward McCoppin, the keeper of the Corowa refreshment room, was recently fined £3O for alleged sly-grog selling. He strongly contends that the conviction was obtained on the unsupported evidence of informers, and went to gaol rather than pay the monetary penalty. Several people have offered to pay it for him, but he will not accept such a release, as he desires to force Government attention to his case by remaining in gaol.

Writing to a Christchurch paper, the Rev. T. H. Lyon states some of the reasons which weighed with members of the Primitive Methodist Conference in voting for the legislation which refuses membership to non-abstainers. Permit me, he says, to point out that we do not propose to strike off our members’ roll any nonabstainers at present in our ranks. The measure is entirely prospective in its bearings. We took the ground that any denomination has a right to have its doctrinal tests and standards of moral conduct which it expects its candidates to accept. They are at liberty to seek membership elsewhere if the views of the denomination are not pleasing to them.

The Sydney Bulletin is responsible for the following:—“A sly-grog shanty on one of the western (N.S.W.) rivers has caused the death of a constable, a senior ditto, and a sergeant of police—horrors, all of ’em—also a teamster, who drew third horse in one of Tattersall’s minor sweeps. He ‘did in ’ £l9O, jumped a new waggonette and pair of horses ‘over the bar,’ and finished up by dying in the fowlhouse where he had been thrown ‘ to make room for someone who could pay his way.’ It took three years to kill the policemen —in instalments —but five days sufficed to knock the bullock puncher out.” Our opinion is that they need a few licensed houses in that district.

The recent decision of Mr Justice A’Beckett in the Village Belle case (Victoria) practically makes lodgers and boarders in public houses prisoners so far as being served with refreshments after hours is concerned. One part of the Act distinctly allows this privilege to lodgers and bona fide travellers, while another section seems to disallow it. From end to end the licensing statutes are in violent and extraordinary conflict, and a disgrace to intelligent people. Unfortunately, it is not easy to review Mr Justice A’Beckett’s decision, but something must be done if the act is not altered.

In New Zealand, where a general election is also looming, the liquor question bids fair to be the chief centre of combat. There is a small but noisy party in Maoriland, who shriek for prohibition, and the publicans are going to flattenjthem out this year. New Zealanders have had a bitter taste of prohibition in the Clutha district. Of course, the consumption of liquor was not diminished in the slightest, it being sold illegally, with heavy loss to the revenue. According to the report of a prominent police magistrate to the Government, prohibition in Clutha has been attended with lamentable results, and an allround lowering of morality. The Trade in New Zealand is organising to strike a blow at prohibition, which will burst up all its pernicious schemes and ideas. —Melbourne Sportemrew.

Nothwithstanding the hard work that the prohibition party are putting in, we believe that if a plebiscite were taken on the subject of absolute prohibition at the present time, and every enfranchised person could be persuaded to register their opinion at the ballot box, the antiprohibitionists would gain a decisive victory. But the election is some distance off yet, and we have always the apathy of voters to contend against. The people of New Zealand are lovers and observers of temperate habit as a rule, and being imbued with the British idea that is contained in the oft quoted sentence, ‘ ‘ liberty of the subject,” are opposed to every form of tyranny and coercion ; still, they are too prone to neglect the privileges of enfranchisement. Every person who neglects to exercise his rights as a citizen loses two votes to his party, and this fact should be borne in mind. The prohibitionists polled a heavy vote at the last triennial election, but they drummed up every supporter they possibly could, whereas many of their opponents never paid a visit to the ballot box. If every person in New Zealand who has a vote would exercise his or her right, the issue would never be in doubt for a moment, and the duty of our party is to prepare themselves and see that they come up to the mark. What we want is a plebiscite in the full sense of the word, and then we prophecy a crushing defeat for the pump party.

In most British countries, discussion is still going on as to the significance and bearings of the plebiscite on the prohibition question which was lately taken in the Dominion of Canada. Leaving out of the question of petty differences as to the actual figures, which do not affect the principle involved, the point at issue is found to be this : Do the results of the plebiscite warrant the expectation that legislation will be introduced by the Dominion Government to give effect to the will of the majority ? The cablegrams published at the time told us that the majority was about 100,000 for prohibition ; but it was added that, as no great interest was taken in the vote by the large body of the electors, no legislation to enforce prohibition would be proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Liberal Premier. That looks like a victory for the anti-prohibitionists, who naturally hold that the maintenance of things as they are will be a set-back for the party of coercion. The prohibition party, as is their wont, claim a ‘ ‘ moral victory,” and the devotees of this retrogressive and anti. Liberal movement are said to be “literally glowing with satisfaction.” What will the Canadian Liberal Government do ? is the question that is agitating the minds of the prohibitionists, not only in the Dominion, but throughout the world. The prohibitionists in Canada declare that if the Dominion Parliament fails to pass a Prohibition Bill it will mean “ the downfall of the Laurier Government.”

Illicit distilling is a peculiar business, and th© men who engage in it are, judging from a recent case at Reef ton, actuated and controlled by a rather odd code of morals. In our “ Legal and, Magisterial” column a description appears of the decision of the Court on the case of Wieberlitz, Mitchell, and Jackson for this offence. It seems that it was agreed between these three gentlemen that if they were caught one should take the onus of the offence on his shoulders and go to gaol, while the other two should carry on the business, reserving the imprisoned partner’s share for him and readmitting him to full partnership when he came out. Evidently, according to testimony submitted, things had been going badly, for two of the partners informed on the third, and divided the £lOO between them, but unfortunately their plan of carrying on the business with the newly acquired capital was frustrated by the police, and now the whole story has come out.

At the Loughborough Petty Sessions (England) recently, William Tempest Cockain, licensed victualler, Loughborough, appeared in answer to a summons charging him with using obscene language on November 18. Mr E. H. Warner, of Quarn Hall, was the owner of fields. On the date mentioned on the summons the defendant and a number of others were crossing these fields. Defendant had three greyhounds with him, and by some means a hare was put up and pursued. Defendant explained that he had not 'intended to use the dogs for game trespass, but only got--them out for exercise. The putting up of a hare was an accident. In the course of conversation defendant made use of filthy language. Mr Clifford, for the defence, said the words were not used at all. After some conversation between the Bench and the solicitors, it was observed that there was no doubt a good deal of hot language used on both sides, and defendant protest d that he did not use the language imputed to him. The Chairman said the magistrates would allow the case to be withdrawn, after having heard what they had about it. The case was withdrawn, and they hoped it would be a lesson to all as to the use of bad language.

Apropos of the licensed victuallers’ picnic, on March Bth, one member of the Trade proposed that all the hotels should be closed for the day o Of course the idea was an impracticable one, as it would so seriously inconvenience the travelling public as well as regular guests, but it gave rise to a discussion as to whether a publican had the right to refuse to serve or accommodate any person he wished to without giving a valid reason. In England he has not got this privilege, but, although it may not be generally known, still it is a fact that in New Zealand a publican can refuse to serve or accommodate any one —even the Governor himself —for no other reason than his own caprice. Section 22, sub-section 5, clause A, of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act Amendment, 1895, says —“ It shall be lawful for, but not obligatory upon, a licensee to sell liquor at any time to apy person being really a lodger living or staying in the licensed premises, or a bona fide traveller seeking refreshment on arriving from a journey.”

At the Bradford West Riding Police Court (England), Mr Alexander Neill, solicitor, representing the Bradford and District Licensed Victuallei s’ Association, on Thursday, drew the attention of the Bench to a case of alleged persecution of the police towards a licensed victualler in Shipley, near Bradford. It appears that the West Riding County Council some time ago passed a resolution that it was undesirable that licensed victua'lers should serve children. These resolutions contained something in the nature of a veiled threat that if the police reported any cases where publicans were known to serve children under 13 years of age, it would be borne in mind at the following brewster sessions. The police at Shipley had misinterpreted these resolutions, and acted as if the law had been altered. The chairman said he had heard a great deal about benches of magistrates requesting licensed victuallers not to serve beer to children under 13years of age. But even after these magisterial resolutions on the matter the law was the same as before, and a licensed victualler was not preeluded from selling beer to children under 13 years of age. He was not aware, however, that any resolution on the subject had been passed by the Bench over which he was presiding. He could scarcely imagine that the police had been harassing any of the licensed victuallers to the extent that had been represented. Any complaint on the subject ought to have been made to the superintendent, and if he had found any grounds for it he would have attended to the matter.

Our English contemporary, the London Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette, in an article, giving a retrospect of Trade affairs for 1898, and a forecast for 1899, says that the Trade starts the New Year under exceptionally favorable circumstances. The fight for Trade rights in England has been a hard and an uphill one, owing to the unscrupulous tactics adopt d by opponents ; but, to quote our contemporary, “ Truth has again prevailed, and the Licensed Trade is to-day second to none in the world, both financially and in public estimation.” We wish we could speak as jubilantly in New Zealand, but unfortunately we cannot. Harassed by a Licensing Act that is a peculiar conglomeration of contradiction and absurd clauses; on the eve of a severe contest with a party that never sleeps, and will resort to any mea e, no matter how contemptible, to gain its ends ; and without (at least as yet) the necessary organisation, the outlook for the Trade in 1899 is hardly as encouraging as its friends and supporters could wish. Still, the Trade in the colony never comprised a better class of men than at the present time, and furthermore, it has never previously paid so large an amount into the coffers of the Government Treasury. That it will triumph in the end there is little doubt, but the fight will be a severe one, and therefore we cannot speak of the outlook as a rosy onel