MR. J. S. PALMER INTERVIEWED.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, 24 November 1910, Page 20

MR. J. S. PALMER INTERVIEWED.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE N.Z. L.V.A ON THE NEW LAW. “LOGICAL ALTHOUGH RESTRICTIVE.” Approached by a “L.V. Gazette” representative on Tuesday, Mr. J. S. Palmer, president of the N.Z. L.V-A.. readily consented to place his views upon the new law before readers of this journal. “In my opinion,” Mr. Palmer said, “the Licensing Amendment Bill as recently passed by both Houses of the Legislature is a great improvement upon the previous law. To demonstrate the truth of this it is necessary that I should remind you of the legislation proposed by the late Mr. £>eddon, under which it was suggested that, in order to test the true wish of the people as to what conditions should prevail, a No-license area should be really made a Prohibition area. This proposal, known as the ‘No-license no liquor’ proviso, was so strongly resisted by that section of the community, whose doctrine lup to that time had been absolute prohibition, that it was abandoned, and, by the subsequent legislation he introduced upon the subject, in 1904 Mr. Seddon in effect practically said ‘lf the principle of ‘No-license no liquor’ is not acceptable, then we will have the converse side, namely, ‘Nolicense and plenty of liquor,’ and under the Licensing Acts Amendment Act, 1904, provision is made for the introduction of liquor into No-license areas in practically unlimited quantities. It is true certain conditions are imposed in connection with the sending of liquor into such areas, but there is no limit as to the quantity of liquor that may be lawfully con-

sumed in such districts, and as we all know, and.the statistics conclusively show, very large quantities alcoholic liquor are either taken or sent into and consumed in the Nolicense districts of the Dominion.” * * » THE SYSTEM A FAILURE. “The country has had what may be termed an extended trial of that system,” Mr. Palmer continued, “and I venture to express the opinion that the results produced are very different to those anticipated from the temperance point of view. There can be very little doubt that both the Government and a large section of the members of both Houses of Parliament have recognised this. That fact is apparent in the passing by the Legislature of the Licensing Amendment BiH of this year.” • * a THE NEW LAW. “The new law,” Mr. Palmer continued, “is based upon much more equitable and logical, although restrictive lines than any previous measure we have had dealing with option pol’s. The highly objectionable and extremely inequitable reduction issue is altogether eliminated, and clearly defined issues will now be placed before

the electors. Those issues indicate to the prohibitionist his position; they show the moderate man where he stands, not merely from the social standpoint, but also how his individual liberty of action is affected and the ultimate effect which the carrying of the No-license and Prohibition issues must have upon the finances and general administration of the Government of the Dominion. For the first time, the moderate man is brought face to face with No-license under such rigid restrictions that, while the line is just drawn at absolute prohibition, it is made next to impossible for him. to entertain his friends in his own home (assuming at he lives in a No-license area) and he is able to do little more than satisfy his own personal requirements, where the consumption of alcolohic liquor is concerned. In entertaining his friends in a No-license district the householder will have to be particularly careful to avoid infringements of the law. It may, indeed, be doubted if he will be prepared to take the risk of introducing liquor to his friends, even in his own house. Mr.

Oliver Nicholson has. I noticed, expressed the opinion that under the new law the moderate man is deprived of the liberty he has hitherto enjoyed, of having liquor in his locker at the club or on his bowling green and at his public or semi-public social gatherings. That restriction is, of course, placed upon him under section 36, the several clauses of which have reference to places of common resort in No-license districts, where liquor may no longer be consumed- I do not. think, however, Mr. Nicholson has gone far enough in defining the pos sibilities and extent of the infringement upon the liberty of the subject which these clauses entail. For instance, one clause reads ‘No building, room or other premises in any No-license district shall be kept, or used, as a place of resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor on those premises.’ Then there is another clause bearing on the locker system, which says ‘lf any premises are kept or used in breach of this section, as a place of resort for the consumption of liquor, the occupier of the same, and every person having, or taking part in the care, management or control of the same, are severally liable to a fine not exceeding £2O for every day on which the pre-

mises are so kept or used.’ Then again, a further clause makes “every person (other than a constable) found on any premises kept or used in breach of this section . . . liable to a fine not exceeding £s.’ Then there is the further clause introduced by the Attorney-General in the ,'Legislativte Council and agreed to by both Houses, which says ‘lt shall not be lawful within any No-license district, or within any area to which section 273 of the principal Act is applicable (proclaimed areas), for any person whomsoever to store or keep liquor for any other person, or to lease, get, hire or permit or suffer to be used, any building or place belonging to or occupied by him or in his possession or under his control, or any part of any such building or place for the purpose of storing or keeping therein or thereon any liquor for or by any other person.’ ” • • • THE HOUSEHOLDER’S PERIL. “It is true,” Mr. Palmer proceeded, “that another clause provides that none of these provisions shall apply

to the consumption of liquor by any person on any premises in which he dwells, or is resident, whether he is the occupier of those premises or not, or to the consumption of liquor supplied to any person by way of gift, by any person who so dwells or is resident on the premises in which the liquor is consumed.’ Mr. Nicholson is apparently of the opinion that under this clause a man’s private house will be immune from invasion, but one has only to read the case reported in the “Herald,” from Waihi, this morning to show the contrary, and it requires no stretch of imagination to foresee under the new law, with its stringent provisions against the keeping or using ‘places of resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor/ that many a man may find himself inveigled within the meshes of the law, without intending in any way to infringe its provisions. And I may point out that the working man is •more likely to be subject to visitations from the police at the caprice of any individual member of the force than the well-to-do citizen, who entertains his friends at dinner and spends a social hour or two with them subsequently. Assume the case of a man who wishes to have a number of his friends with him for social pur-

poses. He prepares for it by sending outside the No-license area for the liquor he requires for his own and his friends’ consumption. After his guests have assembled the police raid his premises because he is not so well protected by his environment as the man of large means and more important social standing; the police seize the liquor they find on the premises, and haul him to Court for keeping his house as ‘a place of resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor.’ Under Clause 3 of section 36, he as the occupier and his wife or any other member of his family, who may take part in the care, management or control, of his household, becomes liable to a fine not exceeding £2O, and his guests to a fine not exceeding £5- I think, therefore, it is very doubtful whether any householder in a No-license district will be justified in incurring the risk obviously attachel to the tendering of a glass of wine or other alcoholic refreshment to friends who may happen to visit him, or, indeed, to permit the consumption of alcoholic liquors on his premises

by other than those who are actually resident therein. Still, it seems to me to be only logical that the law should force home upon the people of this country the true effect of the carrying of No-license in any electorate. If the sale of liquor is to be abolished in any district it is only reasonable to assume that the desire ia that the consumption of alcoholic liquor in that district should also cease. The one is the natural and inevitable corollary of the other, and I am convinced that the new law will cause the moderate section of the community to think hard and keep thinking upon the issues involved before they finally vote away their liberty of action.” * * * THE POSITION !N A NUTSHELL. “To sum up the position concisely,’’ Mr. Palmer added in concluding the interview, “the Trade are by no means satisfied with the Bill, and judging from published utterances the Prohibitionists are only partially phased, but, notwithstanding such difference of opinion, an effort seems to have been made to deal with the issues effectively from a general and public standpoint, with the result that, under the new conditions, improved facilities will be provided, which should have the effect of testing the more genuine desire of the electors with reference to the solving of a difficult problem, and one the solution of which must necessarily affect the future welfare of the Dominion to a better or worse degree.