DISFRANCHISED !

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1047, 31 March 1910, Page 20

DISFRANCHISED !

NEW ZEALAND HOTELKEEPERS” DISABILITIES. "' <:>;.• • DEBARRED FROM POLITICS. It is surely one of the greatest ironies of political life in this or any other country that a Government headed by an ex-hotelkeeper, in the person of the late Right Hon. R. J. Seddori, should be responsible for the legislation that practically bars men and women following his former calling from exercising their right as citizens to take part in politics. There is, as far as we are aware, no other calling that is hedged around with so many restrictions as that of the hotelkeeper in this country. He alone is singled out for special legislation, which practically places him at the mercy of fanatical wire-pullers and capricious agitators every three years. The Local Option vote is manipulated against him if he dares to offend Labour leaders or his employees by resisting what he feels to be undue exactions. The so-called “Temperance” leaders wage war upon him unceasingly. He must be restricted in the avenues of his legitimate trade; the hours in which he is permitted to do his business must be narrowed down; he must not employ harmaids, and must be able to identify every “prohibited”'person, and be in a position to say just when a man has reached the boundary line that separates Jack sober from Jack the worse for liqi|or; and, finally, his business itself would be voted out of existence if the Prohibitionist had his way. Because he is a publican and supposed to be “coining money” at his bars, his pockets must be open to every attack that is made upon it —a benefit concert here, a band performance there, and a charity entertainment or bazaar somewhere else. Then there are clubs and subscription lists galore that are brought under his notice, and a refusal to subscribe generally brings him illwill and he probably hears that the disappointed collector is “running the Trade down,” and urging his friends to vote “No-License.” Prior to a Local Option poll being taken he is, moreover, liable to be held up by his employees, or the Trades Union representing them, with demands, made in the “Stand and Deliver” fashion for shorter hours, more holidays and bigger wages. If he demurs he is reminded that the Local Option polls are coming on, as was done in the case of the Auckland hotelkeepers in 1908, and he is thus forced to concede rates and privileges which unfairly handicap him in his business. He has to choose practically between the devil and the deep sea, and knows that in any case he is bound to suffer. • • « • DEBARRED BY THE LOCAL OPTION VOTE. The oily agitatings of men like Mr. E. J. Carey, Secretary to the Wellington Cooks and Waiters’ Union; the use they make of their positions as members of the Trades and Labour Councils, and the unfair issues they raise in regard to hours of service, rates of pay, etc., are all so many additional goads, the pricks from which must be borne in silence unless the hotelkeeper desires to have the “dogs of war” let loose upon him. Most unfairly, as we pointed out on a previous occasion, Mr. Carey did not hesitate to make use of his position at the General Election of 1908 to urge the workers, including the members of his own Union, a large number of whom are dependent upon thje (hotelkeepers 'for their employment and means of subsistence, to vote for “No-License, and the consequent destruction of the Trade. And a similar state of affairs would have been apparent in Auckland had the hotelkeepers there refused to give way to the men’s de-

mands. The .manner in which the “No-License” vote is used and manipulated against the hotelkeepers by men of the Carey stamp is grossly unfair, and the law that permits such a use to be made of it is unfairer still. It is, however, hopeless to expect that the law will be amended appreciably until the public are alive to the injustice it inflicts. Why should a publican be practically debarred from taking an active part in politics? Yet it is notorious that if such a man was to stand for Parliament, or take an active part in helping forward the election of any of his friends, he and they would promptly have arrayed against them, not only the Temperance vote in the election itself, but a heavier vote would be cast in favour of “No-License” at the Local Option polls, by his or their opponent’s friends, who would thus seek retaliation because he had a mind of his own and sufficient backbone to support one or other of the great political parties. We may be told that there is no disability under which the hotelkeeper labours in this direction. But that is true only up to a certain point. There is no actual legal disability, but the effect is the same, because coupled with the always hostile “Temperance” vote, there are always the wreckers —the men with a real or fancied grievance at work —who do not hesitate to counsel the workers to record their votes at the Local Option polls in favour of “No-License.” And in certain sections of Society in this country the man without a grievance is somewhat of a rara avis. If he hasn’t a grievance he can soon manufacture one, particularly when he is dealing with men and women who are engaged in a Trade that is treated from such a prejudiced standpoint.