LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume X, Issue 470, 27 July 1899, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.

In obedience to many requests, we this week re-publish the letter Mr R. S. Hawkins, the Clutha S.M., addressed to the Minister of Justice in December, 1897. The prohibitionists are always denying the existance of sly-grog selling in Clutha. Let them ponder well over the remarks of Mr Hawkins :— Magistrate’s Office. Balclutha, Dec. 8, 1897. To the Hon. the Minister for Justice, Wellington. Sir, —It having been my duty to administer in my capacity of Stipendiary Magistrate the penal provisions of the Licensing Act, 1881, for the last four years within my circuit, and having, therefore a singular experience in this capacity of the operation of what may be termed ‘ ‘ the prohibition provisions’ ’ of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act within the electoral district of Clutha, I think it right to lay before the Government the judgment which I have formed as to the result of that experience. Before doing so, I desire to offer certain considerations which, I think, are necessary to’explain the attitude of the population towards prohibition. It is hardly to be questioned that the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Acts were the direct issue of a persistent pressure upon Parliament by an organisation of very active and zealous persons, who considered that persuasion had totally failed to induce the people to abandon the use of alcoholic drink, and that the executive had totally failed to regulate the sale and prevent the acknowledged abuses of the Trade. This organisation persuaded Parliament to put in the power of any constituency, to have recourse to the violent means of shutting up all public-houses, and of totally prohibiting all sale of alcoholic liquors within any electoral district where they obtain a certain majority in favor of that course. I do not think that there can be any doubt that Parliament, in consenting to pass legislation of so drastic a nature in relation to an article of common consumption was influenced by the belief that it would be accepted and its prohibitive provisions acted upon in a not inconsiderable number of, and in not unimportant, electoral districts and centres of population. It seems incredible that if Parliament had been able to foresee that in 1897 there would be only one remote electoral district, with widely separated smalL townships in a scattered agricultural and pastoral population, , in which those provisions were to be in force it would never have been induced to pass the law. Yet this is the fact. Twice at an interval of three years the question of the adoption or non adoption of these prohibitive provisions has been referred to the whole constituencies of the colony on a special ballot, the issues being defined in the clearest manner, and twice have the centre constituencies of the colony (with the single exception of the Clutha district) refused to adopt. And in the Clutha district there has only been a vote to close the public-houses. The “ no license” vote has never been carried. I think it is important to put these facts prominently forward, because they do unquestionably influence the wide public feeling of antagonism to the law which exists here. There is a sense of injustice and irritation arising out of the fact that what is lawful and expedient elsewhere throughout the entire colony should be declared unlawful and inexpedient in this district. The fact that a majority of the people have desired, and may still desire, the application of the law, does not appeal to the common sense of the minority as a justification for the restraint. They feel that they are the victims of an arbitrary law and of an arbitrary territorial boundary, and I think this latter point has caused and explains the especial ill feeling against the law which exists in the Tapanui district, where, at the last poll, a considerable majority was cast for the issue of licenses, a majority which was destroyed by votes cast in the Waiwera district at the opposite end | of the constituency, and with which the Tapanui settlers have no interest in common, and but little inter- communication. There always remains the ( fact that the consumption of alcoholic liquors is not, and until public opinion is totally changed, flannot be regarded as malum in se. That it is

neither morally bad nor inexpedient, the population of this district must be satisfied since they find that both Houses of Parliament regularly pass a sessional resolution approving the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors within the walls of the Parliament House itself. With these general considerations I pass to the actual results of the application of the provisions of this constituency, so far as they have come under my notice as Magistrate. I append to this report schedules giving the particulars of every information laid since prohibition was carried and what was done on those informations. The general result is as follows :—lnformations withdrawn, 40; dismissed, 16 ; convictions, 23; total, 79. Total amount of fines levied, £651. It cannot be said that the law has been allowed to sleep by the Executive or that it has not fairly been put into operation. It will be observed that the first information was laid m November, 1894 ; the last cases were heard in December, 1897. Looking back on those prosecutions, and considering the position to-day, it is impossible for me to say thatthe sale has been stopped, or that any final blow has been given to the Trade. My impression is that the effect of convictions are only temporary, and are effaced within a not very long period of time. They bring about greater caution for a time, until the impression wears off. I am quite unable to say to what extent the oonsumption of alcoholic liquors in the private houses of the settlers has taken the place of the publichouse consnmption. lam sure that at first after the closing of the licensed houses the quantity of alcoholic liquors going in demijohns and casks into private houses was very considerable. But I have been informed that it has since decreased, owing to the settlers finding that it was too costly, the demijohn and cask being soon exhaust d when access was constantly to be had to

it. On the other hand, I am informed from credible sources that liquor is to be found generally, and is offered to visitors, where before 1893 no liquor was kept. I put forward these statements with extreme diffidence. I have no evidence which I could bring forward myself. In all statements made to me I have to consider whether my informant is a prohibitionist or a licensed advocate, and to discount the statement accordingly if he is either one or the other. So far as to the effect on liquor consumption, I have now to go to a far more serious aspect of the case, the repressive measures, and the penal enforcement of them have led to an open defiance of the law, and to a disregard of truth in the Magistrate’s Court, the evils of which I cannot sufficiently dwell on and deplore. There is hardly a case which has come before me in which the defendant has pleaded “ not guilty” in the box.' In some cases it is most delibrate; in all it seems to me that no odium attaches to it on the mind of the ordinary public; and that resort to any practices has been justifiable to’defeat what is considered an unfair attempt to deprive the public of aright. The lying is becoming systematical, the points to be protected are gett in gf clearly defined, the difficulties of the prosecution are increasing. In a case not long ago (if reliance is to be placed on the statements made in

Court by the prosecution) a deliberate conspiracy existed to get rid of witnesses and defeat the ends of justice, while hardly a case is heard in which the prosecution has not suggested that the witnesses for the prosecution have been tampered with, a suggestion which I cannot deny appears to be well founded. I frequently arrive at a conviction by discrediting a part and crediting other parts of the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution, and totally discrediting witnesses for the defence. That there is wide public sympathy with the settlers and antagonism to the informers and police is unquestionable, and in a recent case in Tapanui there is little doubt that it was necessary that the informer shouid be taken under police protection. It appears to me that the advocates of prohibition care nothing so long as they can keep the public houses closed—what injury is done to the respect for law or to the cause of morality or justice. That their entire morality is summed up in the words, ‘ ‘ total abstinence,” and given that ruat coelum. Ido not so regard it, and I say that while attempting (for they only attempt) to cast out one devil, they are bringing in several others far worse than that one. There are not only the evils I 'have dwelt upon, but there is dissension and illwill and mutual distrust, and. even hatred springing up in these little townships and growing out of thissource. It may be said “if all this lying in court is going on, why do I not order a prosecution for perjury,” There was one committal by me for perjury in a licensing case, in which the perjury was absolutely demonstrated beyond all question—perjury based on conclusive documentary evidence, yet the jury acquitted the accused It is not the first case of the kina within my experience, and it is a matter of general- on dit that a conviction for perjury cannot be got out of an Otago and Southland jury. Convictions for perjury are, in my judgment, never likely to be obtained as long as the fault is elevated into the dignity of an indictable offence, and subjects the offender to seven years’ imprisonment. When criminal Jaw shall obtain due attention and rational treatment from the Legislature, lying in the witness box, in all matters of summary jurisdiction and that of the Magistrate’s Civil Court, will be an offence punishable summarily by the Stipendiary Magistrate by fine or alternative imprisonment. I have placed, to the best of my ability, before you my judgment on the whole position. It is for the Government to take the responsibility of maintaining or asking Parliament to abrogate this law. But if Parliament declines to abrogate the law, then 1 think that the Executive should put on such a force as to render the breach of the law impossible, for I hold that the continuance of the present state of things is unendurable and an evil of a character most mischievous to the morality of the population of the district. Whatever happens, as long as the law is in force, I shall in the discharge of my Magisterial duty vigorously enforce it. On that head the Government need entertain no doubt whatever.— Yours, etc., i - . Robert S. Hawkins, Stipendiary Magistrate.. ,„for - the Lawrence, Milton, and Clutha districts. 1