WILL THE BILL PASS?

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIX, Issue 1075, 13 October 1910, Page 20

WILL THE BILL PASS?

THE “MODERATE MAN’S” OPPORTUNITY.

LEADING PROHIBITIONISTS APPROVE OF THE MEASURE.

At the time of writing these notes it is difficult to say how the new Licensing Bill is regarded. In certain quarters it is greeted with expressions of warm approval. Mr. T. E. Taylor and Mr. H- G. Ell, for instance, who are probably the most pronounced Prohibitionists in the House, view it as “the most progressive measure that has been offered to the Reform (by which it is meant the Temperance) party of this (Country! up to date.” Mr. J. Vigor Brown considers it is “a purely Prohibition Bill.” Mr. Arthur Myers is surprised to find that the compact has not been followed in the legislation brought down, but expresses pleasure that “the Dominion will have the opportunity of deciding whether it is really in favour of National or local prohibition.” Mr. McLaren, as the sole representative of the Labour Party in Parliament, says that the general principles of the measure are on the lines which the New Zealand Labour Party has adopted. His impression is that the workers generally will prefer to have the liquor issue decided on the national basis, but he is not logical enough to say he will oppose local no license. * • * THE TRADE RETICENT. The officials of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association are disinclined to express an opinion upon the effect of the new measure until after the annual meetings of the several provincial and New Zealand associations. The annual meeting of the Auckland L.V.A. takes place next week, and that of the New Zealand L.V.A. follows on the 25th inst., at Wellington- It is, therefore, difficult to say what attitude the hotelkeepers are likely to adopt towards the Bill; but, judging from Lobby gossip, members of the House are not at all sanguine of the measure passing this session. The extreme prohibitionist section of the community is, again, very much dissatisfied with the measure, considering that the whole business should be settled on the bare majority vote, and that the respite granted to the Trade, after the carrying of National Prohibition, should not be permitted. If the people favour prohibition, they argue that it should be given effect to immediately. The moderate section of the community regard the Bill less favourably. “For the first time in the history of New Zealand,” said one gentleman, the other day, discussing the Bill with the writer, “the moderate man finds it necessary to assert himself, and I think he will do so.” * * * AN INCONGRUOUS MEASURE. Like most measures based upon compromises, the Bill is full of incongruities. That it is illogical is, of course, quite a small matter. Some of the “Reforms” it proposes to introduce, are of a very debatable, if not impossible, character. Take the age limit, which seems to be generally applauded, for instance. The Bill proposes to raise the age under which youths must not be served with liquor from 18 to 21 years. It is difficult enough to discriminate now, but it will be even more so if this provision is adopted- In theory, such a reform appears very desirable, but in practice, it will be found very difficult to judge between those under and over the prescribed age. And the hotelkeepers’ calling will be rendered additionally difficult if an attempt is made to enforce the provision. Persons at varying ages differ so much in appearance that, while some boys of 17 or 18 might readily pass for 22 or 23, or even more, others, who have long since attained their majority,

might be regarded as under the age of 21. And it does seem, to say the _east, unreasonable that men and women requiring refreshments, should be liable to be questioned in regard to their age, and possibly even be compelled to carry a birth certificate with them, to ensure their right to obtain that refreshment. Unless the law can be made effective, it is really of very little service, and this new provision must necessarily lead to a great deal of friction between hotelkeepers, the police and the public. Again, in the barmaid question, why should distinctions be drawn between the wife or daughter of the hotel licensee, who serves in the bar, and the women employed by him to serve there also. And what reason can be assigned for pillorying a woman’s name in the “Government Gazette,” .simply because she happens to be a barmaid, employed as such, prior to the Act coming into force. There are good barmaids and bad; just as there are good and bad waitresses, and good and bad cooks and housemaids- And the standard of morality is certainly no worse in the case of the barmaid, although it is not every woman who cares to follow the barmaids’ calling. On the other hand, some women seem specially adapted for such duties, and prefer that method of earning their livelihood to any other form of indoor avocation. * * * AN ILLOGICAL BILL. The licensee again, should he be blessed with half a dozen daughters, may, under this Bill, legitimately employ each and all of them behind the bar. Is it necessary to assume that the same ladies, employed by some other licensee, would be in greater need of protection than they would be at home; or that their employment in that way would prove more dangerous to the public? Again, in regard to the issues which are to be placed before the country. The Bill is based on very illogical lines. Instead of inaugurating, as it might very well have done, the “No-license, no liquor regime, in electorates voting no-license, it permits the elector to vote for local no-license with Dominion Prohibition, and at the same time allows him, if the latter is not carried, to import as much liquor into the electorate as he requires for his own purposes. It practically does away with the local option business, by compelling those who record their votes in favour of no licenses being issued in their own district, to also vote for absolute prohibition in the Dominion. Yet another point which may be noted is the fact that the negative proposition is put first on the licensing ballot paper. It is probably out of regard for the feelings of the Prohibitionists, and with the view of enabling them to still maintain their “Strike out the top line” song, that the vote for National Prohibition is placed second on the ballot paper. Then, again, if we are to have a 55 per cent, majority it should be by a majority of vote of the electors as a whole, and not merely of those who go to the poll, while others may be debarred from doing so. But these and other aspects of the Bill may well be discussed again. The one redeeming feature of the measures is that it eliminates the grossly unfair Reduction vote and appears to promise some sort of finality in the way of licensing legislation, although we may be permature in asserting eveu that much.