THE MODERATE CONSCIENCE

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 699, 30 July 1903, Page 20

THE MODERATE CONSCIENCE

We have on more than one occasion directed attention to the fact that whaC may be called the secular (and the word has a deep meaning) press of the country is either hostile to or half-heartedly in favour of justice so far as the liquor trade is concerned The daily press does not quite grasp the idea that the right of property in hotels and breweries ought to be held as sacredly as that in any other thing. In a general way people admit that when by the action of the public the value of a man’s interest in anything is taken from him he should be compensated, but the looseness of the moral conceptions upon the point may be judged by the eagerness with which a plan of compensation such as that proposed by Mr Arthur Chamberlain has been acclaimed by those outside the Trade. Our readers may have assumed from the tone of several quotations in these columns that the “Wanganui Herald ” is a journal which, if not well disposed towards brewers and publicans, stands up for the principles of fair dealing. We believe it to be wellmeaning. The laxity in principle to which reference has been—made may,-

indeed, not be apparent to those who conduct its pages Like others of the same class they unconsciously differentiate trade interests from all others, and tacitly acquiesce in a policy which they would just as instinctively condemn if it were applied to any other business. We take the Wanganui paper simply as a sample, and because in its columns we find the latest utterances on a question which is fast forcing itself into public attention. The “ Herald ” says:—

“ The question of compensation has always been a much debated one by the two parties chiefly interested in the liquor que tion. The Trade claim that where a license is refused compensation should he paid to the licensee, while the Prohibition party as strongly opposes anything of the sort, maintaining that the license is given at the will of the State from year to year, and carries with it no obligations. Many, however, who object to compensation being provided by the general taxpayer, see no reason why, in the event of the licenses being reduced, the existing licensees should not pay for the monopoly they possess by way of compensation to those who have lost their licenses. This view is evidently held by the Trade in some parts of England, for we notice an article in a recent issue of the ‘National Review’ that the Midland Brewers’ Association has initiated a scheme of compensation in the way indicated.”

And then the article proceeds to outline Mr Arthur Chamberlain s scheme, and to make some general reflections upon monopoly, the evils of intemperance, and the benefits that will accrue to the remaining publicans by the abolition of the licenses of others. We need not here pause to point out that in districts where prohibition is carried no member -of the trade benefits at the expense of his brother. Our object is rather to point out that the doctrine which lies so easy on the consciences of those who are not directly interested in the matter one way or other—-who are neither publicans nor prohibition fanatics —is utterly repudiated by the Trade. This we have shown over and over again, and the following remarks by the London correspondent of the Australian Trade journal emphasise the fact once more —

From time to time I have endeavoured -to -explain what has been known as the Birmingham surrender scheme, - under which, after threats from the Licensing Bench, the local brewers agreed to make large surrenders ■of licensed houses, almost pretending that the process pleased them. This was inaugurated six years ago, and-each year since the appetite of the bench for surrenders, as was to be foreseen, has increased. The bench hitherto has been ruled by Mr Arthur Chamberlain, a brother of the Colonial Secretary, and two months ago, in deasandin*" - surrender of 50 liMUtt this year.

trouble thro ighout the country, which has now become so acute, have at last recognised that they have to deal with a bitter enemy and autocrat, whose action has now become intolerable. In view of the public sympathy lately aroused for the trade in their demand for fair and common justice, the Birmingham brewers have admitted their error at last, and have determined no longer to submit to the demands of Mr Arthur Chamberlain. A short time ago a petition was sent to the Birmingham justices with a view to their adopting and sending it to the Home Secretary, in which the Government were asked to bring in a compensation bill. Mr Chamberlain, as chairman of the bench, acted in a very high-handed manner, and without duly consulting his colleagues, publicly stated that they would have nothing to do with it. This was not the fact, and his colleagues thereupon petitioned the Lord Mayor of the city to call a special meeting to consider the memorial on May 6th. In the meantime, Mr Arthur Chamberlain went from extreme to extreme He entered into bittef discussions in the newspapers, then went to London to speak at a large teetotal gathering, at which he was surprised to find himself very much in advance of those who had spoken, and, lastly, he wrote his extreme views in an article in one of the monthly magazines. AH this opened the eyes of his follow-justices and the local brf wers still further to his real aims and views. The Birmingham brewers on May 4th met, and formally withdrew from and threw over the socalkd “voluntary” surrender scheme, at the same time deciding to do all they could to secure Parliamentary protection for their interests, thus coming once more into line with the_trade as Ptwhole after a six years’ attempt to appease Mr Chamberlain. On May 6th the meeting of Magistrates took place at. Birmingham, to which I have referred. Although hitherto his fellow justices had so blindly followed Mr Chamberlain, it was clear they would no longer do so. After a great deal of discuseion, it was decided by 32 votes to 23 to petition the Home Secretary in favour of compensation in spite of the fact that Mr Chamberlain moved an amendment, ard fought the matter “for all he was worth.” The result is a great victory for the trade and discomfiture for Mr Chamberlain and all those who share his views.

This ought to demonstrate very clearly to the secular press that the scheme of Mr Chamberlain has not been “adapted” by those who feel its injustice most acutely, but simply “suffered ” by them, because nothing better has been available. Their action serves, however, to show that the members of the Trade have a much deeper regard for the Golden Rule than their enemies.

The “ Tapanui Courier ” says : —“ It is now apparent that the taint of sly-grog selling cases permeates . the whole community, and that perjury is committed freely and without restraint.”

During the hearing of some prohibition order cases at the S.M. Court, Palmerston North, counsel for the prosecution said the ease with which defendants invented plausible excuses was wonderful, and, moreover, they expected them to be believed. .If the Court desired prohibition orders to become something more than waste-paper and the whole system a farce, it would assist by inflicting heavy penalties for offences in connection v. ith the orders. He added, convictions were most difficult to obtain, .ind for that reason alone, when proof was adduced, the penalty should be heavy.

A meeting of barley-growers was held at Blenheim, on Saturday, under the aurpices of the A. and P. Association to consider the interests of the barleygrowing industry in connection with recent developments in licensing matters. About 50 growers were present. It was pointed out that more barley is raised in Marlborough, proportionately to area, than in any other part of the colony, last season’s yield alone bringing in £45,800. I t was proposed to join the licensed - victuallers’ "which meets the Premier on Wednesday, but it was eventually decided to take separate action. After a vigorous discussion a deputation was appointed to wait on the Premier and to represent the extent to which the interests of barley-growers have been threatened by the recent nolicense development ; also to urge him to formulate such legislation as would remedy those abuses in the conduct of the liquor traffic that had turned the feeling of a large proportion of the people in the direction of no-license, although they were not in actual sympathy with prohibition.

In proposing the toast of “ The Association of Chartered Clubs of New Zealand ” at the annual “ swarry ” in connection with the Christchurch! Working Men’s Club, Mr W. Collins, a former M.H.R., made an appeal in support of such clubs. He said it was no exaggeration to say that at the present the very existence of working men’s and kindred chibs was menaced. They had to decide what was to be done in the future to preserve those clubs, and the -questioned opened up the whole subject of prohibition. The fact that working men’s clubs had existed for many years, and now embraced many thousands in their membership, was proof that they filled a want, and had met certain requirement?' of a very large number of people. They had accumulated a considerable amount of property, and existed, not for the purposes of any private profit, but simply as social institutions for the recreation and benefit of their members-. If they had a right to exist in the past they had a right to exist to-day, and no power of the people ought to have the right to extinguish them. There were other clubs, commonly called “ gentlemen’s clubs.” He took it that they were all “ gentlemen’s dubs.” Both classes of clubs had mutual interests, and he took it that in the future they would organise for- mutual self-de-fence. If the privileges enjoyed by clubs were to be maintained such an organisation was absolutely necessary.

Mr J, Swift, the licensee of the Post Office Hotel, Neavesville, has sold his interest to Mr James Montgomery, The latter gentleman has purchased the freehold from the Campbell-Ehrenfried ,Cq. The total amount paid to Mr Swift and the firm comes close up to £l7OO, Mr Montgomery evidently' has faith in the place, as he means to make improvements in the hotel.

A case of vital importance to hotelkeepers has recently been decided in the Metropolitan Court, Melbourne, in which a travelling theatrical named Nott sued Mr D. M'Lurcan, proprietor of the Wentworth Hotel, Church Hill, for £2O. It appears that in February last a fire broke out in the above hotel, and the plaintiff suffered damage by fire to hia goods to the above extent. After a deal of argument by eminent counsel on both sides, a

verdict was given in favour of plaintiff, with costs amounting to over £IOO. The judge stated that the law presumed negligence on the part of an innkeeper when any loss occurred in respect of a guest’s goods, and the only way in which he could rid of the liability by proving that the loss was occasioned by the negligence of the guest, the act of God, or of the King’s enemies. Defendant in this case could not rely on the protection of the Innkeepers’ Liability Act, as) he had not proved that the re quisite notices had been put up in all the rooms of the hotel. The U.L.V.A. decided to appeal against the decision, as it was considered by the Hon. B. R. Wise, whose opinion was obtained by the association, that it was against law, and establishing a precedent in the State ; but, unfortunately, the defendant died on the day Mr Wise’s opinion was obtained, and the court refused leave of appeal on the grounds of Mr McLurcan’s death. This case should prove a warning to hotel-keepers to have notices, as mentioned by the judge, placed in all rooms occupied by guests. * * * * In the London “ Express ” appears a column of good stories and witty sayings of the late Max O’Rell. One of the stories runs : —Donald feels the approach of death. The minister of his village is at ._his_bedside, preparing by pious exhortations for the great journey. “ Have you anything on your mind, Donald ? Is there any question you would like to ask me ?** And the minister bent down to listen to the dying man’s reply. “ Na, meenister, T’m na afeard. . . I wad like to ken whether there’ll be whisky in heaven Upon his spiritual counsellor remonstrating with him upon such a thought at such a moment, he hastened to add, with a Knowing look : “ Oh ! it’s no that I mind meenister ; I only thoucht I’d like ito see it on the table !” COURT OF APPEAL DECISION. At the Appeal Court, Wellington, on Monday, in the case of Norwood v. Stuart, which involved the right to sell liquor upon a river steamer going for a short excursion, the Court upheld the appeal, and ordered the case to be remitted to the magistrate, with the opinion, of the Court that there should have been a conviction. In the other packet license case, wherein the right to sell liquor on. that part of the Wanganui River which is within the prohibited native district is sought to be upset, the Court was unanimous that such a. license does not come within the meaning of the section of the Act prohibiting the sale.. The rule nisi was discharged with costs. THE SITUATION AT HOME. The following is taken from the London organ of the Trade :— “ Lady Teazle, it will be remembered, was advised by Sir Joseph Surface to part with her virtue to preserve her reputation, and as things fell out she temporarily parted with her reputation whilst preserving her virtue. Mr Balfour to-day finds himself in a similar unenviable situation. According i to the spokesman at the British Temperance League Conference, which.has been iji session at Birmingham this week, the Prime Minister’s attitude towards licensing matters is ‘ unwarranted, one-sided, and against the whole trend of recent licensing legislation.’ He was accused by one well-informed orator of ‘ sheer ignorance and wilfulness ;’ another sucking Cicerb pronounced his deliverance to be ‘ an outrage on the properties of his position ;’ while a third declared that he had r incited the Trade to defy, the law.’ A Mr H. Clegg had the impertinence to assert that magistrates would not submit to Mr Balfour’s the effects of which, he went on to say, would be to stiffen their backs and make them the more careful in granting licenses. ' Such irresponsible abuse and indiscreet threats are to be deplored, but' decency of speech is scarcely to be expected of people who are employing their eloquence in defence of public injustice. But how, in the name of simple logic, has Mr Balfour, earned this opprobrium ? For, in truth, he has done

simply nothing. The Peter Teazles of the Teetotal party are peevish and suspicious, the while our grievance against the Premier is that he gives them no reason for their loss of confidence. The abolitionists are deceived in him without a cause, and it is high time that, ' in compliment to their discernment/ he did something to merit their mistrust. He has promised, as Mr Van Biene would say, fluently, to emancipate the Trade from the thraldom of an iniquitous perversion of the spirit of law by which a body of bigoted faddists are permitted to abuse their discretion to inflict wilful, wanton, and wicked hardship upon the largest contributors to the national revenue in the kingdom. In common with every clear-thinking, unprejudiced man throughout the country, Mr Balfour has recognised and raised his voice against the gross injury of these unjust confiscations, and he has given us every reason to hope that the further perpetration of this glaring public evil will De arrested. The justices, who in February last wiped out 639 licenses by way of sharpening their claws against the wholesale slaughter they threaten to perpetrate at the next Annual Licensing Sessions, plead in extenuation of their conduct that they are acting in the public interests*. They forget that their predecessors in office had, in the public interest, granted these licenses to men who, also in the public interest, have laid out their money in improving their property and devoted the best years of their lives in conducting their business in such a manner as to show the selves entirely worthy of the confidence reposed in them. And the law, on the face of it, expresses the intentions of the legislators who framed it, and who had no idea of confiscating any license except in cases where the holder had shown himself unfitted tq tis* trust. The rights vested in the publican when he received his license and embarked in the most anxious and harassing trade in which a man can invest his money and reputation, were bestowed in the interests and for the good of the public, and Mr Chamberlain has declared, and reiterated his declaration, that whenever the State for the public good confiscated private rights the State was bound to give compensation. One is nauseated by this canting twaddle about acting for the public good when it emanates from men who are only actuated by private prejudices. The policy of doing evil that good may come of it is as dead as Jesuitism i n England

—the savages who murdered the Royal lovers in Belgrade last week took shelter behind this specious and exploded fallacy. The magistrates who advance this plea are fighting for authority to force their narrow and bigoted views down the throats of the community at large without regard to the rights of the publican or the requirements of the public, whose interests they profess themselves s 0 zealous to safeguard. They will resist with all their powers any measure that threatens to> come between them and their object, and resent any attempt “to fetter so as practically to destroy their existing discretion.” Mr Arthur Chamberlain regards the two restrictive measures now before Parliament as the practical expression of such a desire, and he denounces them, on that account, as “impostures, frauds, and delusions.” The brother of the great Mr Chamberlain, whose dictum on this matter we have quoted, is right in his opinion of the nature and aim of the measures which are associated with the names cf Lord Wemyss and Sir William HartDyke respectively. They represent very faithfully the feeling of the public of this country and the determination of the Trade. As a simple act of common justice we demand that Government shall take the necessary steps to prevent further unwarranted and arbitary confiscation of licensed property by the licensing justices. We ask the Government to do what they so frankly declared their willingness to do, but which is yet to do. As Lord Burton, in commenting on the Government’s apathy at the mass meeting held in Burton-on-Trent on Tuesday, asserted, “they expressed much sympathy, but they had done nothing.” On the same day the chairman of the Central Board, at a mass meeting of those interested in the licensed trade held at Derby, said he was in a position to assure his hearers that they had the entire sympathy of His Majesty’s Government. It is very nice to be told that “the members of the Trade could never get a Government more desirous to do justice to them” ; it sounds promising, but we are getting weary of promises, and even vague sympathy begins to cloy. We have waited with examplary patience for these promises to fructify ; for that sympathy to assume practical form. We have had enough “cackle,” and we would fain come to the “ ’osses.” Mr Arthur

Chamberlain has warned Mr Balfour - that “this hostility to the magistrates; this fellowship with the Trade, might bear bitter fruit,” but the fruit will be much more bitter unless Mr Balfour makes up his mind to give practical effect to his hostility to magisterial injustice, and some tangible token of his fellowship with the Trade.

The so-called Licensing Reform Association, in Gisborne, is making, a great deal of fuss, but the sum total ol the business done so far, beyond a large amount of bickering between! the memters 1 , is to prepare petitions against further employment of barmaids, and in favour of the inspection of liquor. Such meddling can de no good to either side.

Several hotel burglaries have taken place in Auckland. During the past few days both <he Hobson and the S.va?i Hotels have been entered, and in each case the thief got away with money or valuables. The fire-escape was the medium in the latter case.

The question of the right to supply liquor in any way to a prohibited district is to be tried at Christchurch. Mr Fredk. Cross, of that city, has been proceeded against on a charge of advertising a certain brand of whisky in an Ashburton newspaper, the information being laid under that section of the Act which says it shall not be lawful to solicit or recede an order for liquor in a ; o-iicense district. The case is proceeding.

The Tied Houses Bill in the Upper House has been productive of a considerable amount of hostility, as being too drastic, and aiming less at “ reform ” than to destroy the Trade. The debate on the second reading has not yet concluded, but judging from appearances there is not much danger of the measure passing, in its present form at any rate.

The members of the Trade who have assembl 'd in Wellinyton with the view of bringing their claims under the direct notice of the Government and Parliament number about 200, and include representatives from all parts of the colony. Their object is to endeavour to get something

like finality in licensing law, and th placing the Trade upon a level wit others on the matter of legal protection Amongst other things advocated is th adoption of a uniform hour of closing eleven o’clock in the centres of populs tion an!d ten o’clock in the country. Then is a growing feeling in the country, tha too much consideration has been t the unjust and unfair demands of th prohibition party, and that the Premier by his recent pronouncement in favour c absolute prohibition, has disclosed th weak spot in tjhe armour of the fanatic: noTicense advocates*. • • • • A mass meeting of the Birminghai and District Licensing Trade was held a the Town Hall, Birmingham, on the IBt ult., to consider the question of compel sation to licensees deprived of thei licenses for the public interest. M Francis W. Lowe, M.P., presided, and th hall was crowded. The chairman, i opening the proceedings, said he wSfe-S favour of compensation for licences take away for public purposes. Alluding t the licensing crusade in Birmingham, h remarked that Mr Arthur Chamberlaii chairman of the licensing justices, an some of his colleagues, appeared to hav allowed their zeal as temperance reforn ers to outrun their discretion. Ther was, he said, absolutely no excuse fo further delay, after the exhaustive re port of the Royal Commission. M Reginald Mortimer proposed a resolutio urging the Government to take im mediate action for giving practical effec to Mr Butcher’s Bill. Mr Moore Bayle seconded the resolution. Sir Alber Muntz, M.P., said those engaged in th Trade had grave reason to complain o the treatment received throughout th country. In forty years' experience as : magistrate, he could not remember i single instance in which a man’s liceno had been taken away except for bad con duct. They had to consider not merel] the letter of the law, but the custom He failed to see the difference betweei licensed property and other kinds o property. He questioned whether it wa fair to the Trade that the whole compen sation for a licence taken away for pub lie good should come out of the pocket: of the Trade. He entirely disagreed witl the view that by reducing licences thej would diminish drinking. The resolutioi was carried with acclamations.