ONE GOOD SCHEME DESERVES ANOTHER.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 708, 1 October 1903, Page 24

ONE GOOD SCHEME DESERVES ANOTHER.

(London “ L.V. Gazette.”] August Bank Holiday—the last special summer festival of the year is. generally recognised as a fitting opportunity for the display of solid joviality and elemental humour of the peculiarly British variety. In some respects Sir Wilfrid Lawson is a typical Britisher, and he apparently could not resist the temptation of improving the gaiety of St. Lubbock’s Day by bringing in a Bill “ to provide for the payment of compensation’ to sellers of liquor in certain cases.” At first glance it looks as if the irrepressible member for Camborne intends to organise a campaign against certain liquors which he regards, one supposes, as being particularly pernicious. The suggestion does not, when it is brought before one suddenly, appear to be altogether lacking in sense or, system. Most of us who have lived long - enough and have travelleid will remember certain liquors we have drunk under necessitous circumstances which have inspired us with thoughts and words uncomplimentary to the purveyor of them, and we would, if Sir Wilfrid’s Bill had been a law of the land in which we consumed them, have briefed a dozen counsel to obtain the compensation that we considered was our due. In brief, if this new measure was conceived with the intention of making the sellers of inferior, or worse, refreshment liable under the law we should have welcomed it with both hands. Such men are a disgrace to the trade in wnich they are engaged and a menace to the public that they are commissioned to serve.

But Sir Wilfrid Lawson’s proposal does not do anything of the kind. It is not calculated to improve the quality of our liquor or the character of the consumer — it is simply, a brick heaved in a spirit of Bank Holiday jollity at the harmless and necessary human being who acts as middle man between the maker and imbiber of intoxicating liquors. The man in street requires to be served with certain liquid comforts, and the State in response to such demands, deputes certain persons, under myriad restrictions and penalties,

to satisfy that demand. Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Company demand the heads of those who are entrusted with thq duty which the public requirements have made it encumbent upon somebody to fulfil. The brewer and distiller are not only innocent, but they are frequently rich ; the consumer is a voter and therefore a person too sacred to molest ; it is the publican who sells for the brewer what the public is eager to buy who must bear the onus of the entire traffic. The barrel is not inculpated, and the glass is dismissed with a caution, but the tap is to be persecuted with all the rigour of the teetotalers’ righteous animosity. That is the gospel according to Sir W’ilfrid, and he defends it on the ground that “ liquor sellers are licensed for no other purpose than to keep people sober by Act of Parliament.” He is appomed to stand between man and his desires ; to judge the public capacity ; to reguiate the public appetite ; and to accept the responsibility for al] divergencies from the grace of dead-cold ’ sobriety. Man, according to this gospel, is no longer to be held responsible for his own actions, because “ the spirit of the J.'.w is that a customer does not know for himself how much drink is good for him, and that the publican is to supply him exactly with that quantity and no more.” But, as it happens, this is not the spirit of rhe law ; it would rather appear to be the inspiration of an entirely different kind of spirit altogether. According to Sir W’ilfrid, however, it is what the law should be, and what he would make it. W r e can imagine the aquamaniacs in council bemoaning their own impotence, and crying with old Omar Khayyam : . . . could you and.l with i.'ate conspire To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, Would we not shatter it to f its —and then Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s desire ? But having done so, and having made it an offence for a publican to serve his customers with more than, the exact quantity of drink that is good for them, how is the publican to gauge the capacity of his patrons ? Some delicately con-

• stituted individuals can see two moons through, the bottom of a single glass of beer, while others can walk away with a bucketful without turning a hair. One day a man may ” cio himself ” well and feel rather the better for it than otherwise, and another day he is conscious, that one-half the quantity would seriously disagree with him. He knows it because his stomach or his brain communicates the fact to him, but the secrets: of each man’s internal organisation is a sealed book to the publican. A full meal, a hot room, overwork or overworry, all juggle with a man’s capacity for liquor, and the publican would require to know not only the man, but his particular mood in order to judge what quantity of spirituous comfort he can swallow with impunity.

In fact it would be iniquitous to abrogate so great a responsibility in such an arbitrary fashion. A publican, like a magistrate, is only human, and to require him to be arbiter of the capacity of each and all of his customers is to handicap him above hiS top form. The only body who could cope with such a task would be the London County Council, and, since schemes are in the air, we would like to put forward a rival suggestion while the Bank Holiday mood is still upon us. The simplest and the sanest way of dealing- with the question of apportioning liability for inebriation would be to license, not the sellers, but the consumers of alcoholic beverages. These lilicenses should be issued by the L.C.C., and every man applying at Spring Gardens for a permit should be compelled to have hiy capacity tested at the expense of the ratepayers. When his carrying powers had been accurately gauged, he should be given a book of tickets for every day of the year. Each ticket should be dated and ruled into squares representing as many drinks as the testing committee consider the applicant to be capable of imbibing without becoming a nuisance either to himself or the community. Publicans should then be instructed to serve only such customers as could produce a ticket, and to cut oil’ a squate or a number of squares to tally with the drink or number of drinks consumed. When a man’s ticket was demolished, he would then have the option of keeping 'himself going on

small lemons, or forging another ticket, or sponging on friends whose tickets were more liberally sub-divided. Every licenseholder would be required to submit himself to a frerh test once a year on applying for a renewal, and he might also be allowed three free tests during the year if he conscientiously believed that his carryino- powers had undergone any variation since he received his license. We don’t profess to regard our scheme as absolutely perfect ; we are aware that, it is not without trifling defects, but compared witii Sir Wilfrid Lawson’s Bank Holiday measure it is an eminently lucid, simple and practical suggestion.

It is safe to say that no licence holder who had any regard for his future would run the risk of serving a drunken man, or leave himself to the tender mercies of the police by permitting drunkenness on his premises. The sale of a, single glass of ale might mean the infliction of a heavy fine and costs, and ultimate ruin. There are times, however, when it is impossible t ; o tell at a glance whether a customer is drunk or not, and in such cases licence holders might be recommended to take a leaf out of the book of Mr James Bishop, of the Fountain Inn, Chorlton-on-Medlock. When he was informed that he would be summoned for having sold beer to a drunken maw, and for permitting drunkenness, he, satisfied in his own mind that the customer was not drunk, instructed a doctor to go to the police station and report. Naturally the doctor was also one of the chief witnesses for the defence. A duly qualified surgeon, in' practice for seventeen years, he described how he put the man through a walking test, got him to put his feet together and hold up his head with his eyes closed —showing a steadiness characteristic of sobriety—and how he finally got him to write his name and address -with a flourish on a sheet of paper that was handed up to the stipendiary. The expense of engaging this medical practitioner must have been considerable, but it proved to be money well spent, for Mr Bishop had the satisfaction of being informed, after a patient hearing, that the summons against him was dismissed.