RACE CLUB BOOTHS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1039, 3 February 1910, Page 21

RACE CLUB BOOTHS.

HUTT LICENSING COMMITTEE’S “ SORE ” FEELING. A special meeting of the Hutt Licensing Committee was held at Perone on Wednesday, Dr. M’Arthur presiding. Members of the Bench present were: Messrs. J. Cotton, William Inglis, Orton Stevens, and J. Cudby. The business before the meeting was an application from Mr. M‘Leod, an hotelkeeper outside the Wellington Licensing District, to sell liquor at the refreshment booths of the Wellington Racing Club’s meeting. Mr. Neave, solicitor for the applicant, stated that in October last, applicant purchased «from the Racing Club the right to sell liquor at four consecutive race meetings. At that time, he was licensee of an hotel at Waipukurau, and was not aware that the Bench had some time previously resolved that conditional licenses of race meetings should be issued only to licensees in the Wellington district. In the meantime he had become committed to a liability of £7OO for the purchase of the privileges from the club. Under those circumstances, it was necessary for him to make an arrangement with Mr. Shortis, licensee of the Princess Hotel, Wellington, who was made a partner in the venture. That was shortly before the first of the four meetings, and the second meeting was only a few days off. The secretary of the Racing Club had signed an affidavit to the effect that the club was quite satisfied with the sale to Mr. Shortis. If the present application was not entertained it would not only throw a very heavy liability on his clients, but would also upset the arrangements of the Racing Club. Mr. Stevens said that if the Racing Club sold to a licensee outside the Wellington district, he failed to see how the purchaser could be held liable in the event of a license being refused.

The chairman: ‘ ‘ They have sold something which they had no power to sell.” The club, he added, had been informed of its position in regard to the issue of licenses. He did not think that either of the lessees need be afraid of forfeiture of the purchase money. The committee considered the application in committee, and after some djiscusafion, the chairman (intimated that the Bench had decided not to be harsh. It was prepared to issue a license to the applicants for one meeting only—that of next Saturday—on the distinct understanding that the arrangements between M'Leod and the Racing Club would be cancelled. The Bench, continued Dr. M'Arthur, felt very sore about the matter, so much so that if any similar difficulty arose the present committee had decided to decline to grant any conditional licenses to the Wellington Racing Club, The matter was now in the club’s own hands. In granting the permit, the committee had been influenced in its decision by the fact that it was so near the date of the meeting. If it had not been for. that, members would have taken a very different view of the matter. • •• " —- REGULATION. BEFORE PROHIBITION. TEMPERANCE MAN’S UNBIASSED OPINION, * MILWAUKE v. MAINE. Mr. Edwin B. Lloyd of Wisconsin, (U.S.A.), is the latest Temperance convert to the belief that Regulation is more desirable than Prohibition because as he truly says “ Prohibition will never prohibit.” Writing to the “ Independent” he says;— As a temperance man from childhood, for many years a prohibition and Good Templar worker, formerly publisher of the New England “ Good Templar,” twenty-five years devoted to reform movements, an earnest, and, I believe, conscientious member of Christ’s Church, the father of six ehildren, five of whom are girls, knowing the imputations that invariably follow a statement of this kind from a man in my position, I hesitate to record my present belief as regards the question, “ Does Prohibition Prohibit?” For many years I insisted that prohibition and sumptuary laws alone could regulate the question of intemperance. Ten years’ residence in Wisconsin has completely changed these opinions. SOBER' MILWAUKEE. Milwaukee is undoubtedly the “ wettest ” town on the map. In directing a stranger to any given locality it is quite common to say, “ Go seven saloons north and three west.” Theoretically, such conditions should make this city the most drunken and disorderly in the country. Honesty compels me to admit, however, that Milwaukee is the most orderly city with which I have ever come into contact. Beer and light wines are consumed freely and the result is that very little of the stronger drinks is used. In ten years I have not seen a dozen men the worse for liquor. No city in the country can show as many homes’ owned by the working classes. We have no labor troubles. You can go 1 to our public parks any Sunday afternoon and see from fifteen to twentythousand people enjoying the band concerts, and drunkenness is an un- 1 known quantity. Ido not hesitate to allow my daughters to visit their 1 friends either in daytime or 1 as life is just as safe on our streets <

L as in the confines of the home. The ’ moral status of Milwaukee is second l to no city of its size in the country, > and on this point I defy refutation. ■ I have no defence to make for beer L or light wines, but anyone who will ) make an honest investigation of conditions here will be forced to admit that we have about the most healthy > contented and respectable class of people in the country. ‘ DRUNKEN MAINE. I made a careful study of conditions in my native State of Maine a few i years ago, and was amazed at the difi ference. I saw more drunken men in the month I was in Maine, many times more, than I have seen in this city in ten years’ residence. I found that every man who had a desire for intoxicants was well supplied, and more whisky was offered me in my month’s visit than has been offered to me here in ten years. I have come to regret that so many of my fellow churchmen insist on treating the question from the theoretical point of view, basing their belief upon the presentation of professional political agitators instead of making an honest investigation of the facts. The evils of intemperance are so pronounced that any movement that tends to make whisky drinkers out of a class of people who would otherwise make temperate use of beer and mild wines, should be given careful consideration. Prohibition will never prohibit. Regulation will regulate if divorced from party politics. Let us have regulation. PUBLIC-HOUSE REFORM. Speaking on “ public-house reform,” at the annual meeting of Ansell’s Brewery, Birmingham, the chairman, (Mr. E. Ansell) repeated the remarks of the Bishop of Worcester (Dr. Yeatman Biggs), who in referring to temperance work, and in particular to the subject of licensing and publichouses, said:—“ln making a new and better effort, might it not be well to cease denouncing public-houses as such? What was needed was, not the destruction, but the reform of the public-house, and a more general recognition that some kind of a publichouse was a national necessity. At the same time there must be drastic punishment for those who turned what was meant for the public good into an opportunity for public hurt. The best members of the “trade” desired to make their houses places of general meeting and innocent recreation and refreshment, and would be helped to accomplish this more truly by sympathetic than by vindictive legislation. He (the Chairman) was convinced there was and had been a strong and ernest desire on the part of the “trade” to put their houses in order, but their efforts in that direction did not appear to meet with their encouragement and support he considered they deserved. The magistrates had the key to the situation, and he trusted that in the near future the wise counsels of the Bishop of Worcester would prevail. ' SLY-GROG AT MASTERTON. BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT. ACCUSED’ FINED £5O. At the Magistrate’s Court, Masterton on Friday, Thomas Brook Lee was charged before Mr. R. H. Turton, S.M., with keeping liquor for sale within the No-License area of Masterton. William Burridge, brewer, stated that Lee got three dozen of ale from him on October 23rd, and various quantities on other dates.

Constable Brown said that on January 22nd he kept a watch on accused’s house, and between 8.30 and 11 o’clock he saw twenty men go in and come out of the house. They only remained a few minutes. On more than one occasion he saw a man go in the house and come out with something under his coat. Frequently women and children came out of Lee’s house and, going as far as the gate, had a look round and then went inside again. On Sunday night, January 23rd, between the hours of 8 o’clock and 11, witness saw eight men go into the house and come out. On several occasions Lee came out of the house, spoke to various people at the gate, and then returned inside, coming out shortly afterwards with something under his coat. About 10 o’clock three men obtained something from Lee and went to a shed in Queen Street. Witness followed, and heard the drawing of corks. In half-an-hour one man left the shed, went into Lee’s, and subsequently returned with something under his coat. About 11 o’clock the men left the shed, and witness searched it, finding four empty bottles which had recently contained beer. On the following night, between 8.30 and' 9.30, he saw three or four men go into accused’s house. On one

occasion a man went into Lee’s and when he came out he handed a beer bottle to two others on the street When the police raided the house they found therein thirty-four bottles of beer. Constables Dunn, Anderson, and Townsend gave similar evidence. Accused, in the course of a statement in the box, said he was a labourer. He admitted that he had ordered

beer, but he had not sold any. He had consumed the beer himself and i "With friends. In cross-examination accused admitted that he had not worked since December 28th. ■ The Magistrate: “Do you ask the Court to believe that you, who admit that you have been out of work for a ! month, could afford to give away the j quantity of beer that was ordered by I you?” Accused: “I drank a good lot. of it myself.” This concluded the evidence. Mr. Turton said his views on sly : grog-selling were well known. He had expressed himself over and over ; again on the subject and would deal ' severely with all cases proved before

him. The demeanour and general conduct of the accused in the box was of such a nature that he (the Magistrate) was compelled to say that he did not believe the evidence given by the accused. He would impose a fine of £5O and costs, £4 7s.