BARS AND BARMAIDS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIX, Issue 1107, 29 June 1911, Page 20

BARS AND BARMAIDS.

ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE WOMEN AND HOTELS QUESTION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —With reference to the matter of “Women and Hotels,” there seems to me to me another phase of that question which is capable of investigation and possibly even criticismUnder the Licensing Amendment Act 1910, certain provisions were made for the registration of what are. termed “barmaids,” the object being, ostensibly, to bring about restriction for a time of such employment, and, ultimately, the total abolition of the established practice (which has been in use for years) of employing females as ‘barmaids.” Well now Sir, section 30 of the Licensing Amendment Act 1910, reads: — (1) After the Ist day of June 1911,. save as provided by this section, no female shall be employed in any capacity, or permitted to serve in any capacity, in or about .the bar of any licensed premises, at any time while the bar is open for the sale of liquor. (2) If any licensed person commits a breach of the provisions of this section, he shall be liable to a fine

not exceeding £lO for every day on which the offence is committeed. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the employment or service ,(a) The wife, sister or daughter of the licensee of the premises. (b) The licensee being a woman. (c) Any person duly registered as a barmaid under this Act. No doubt that reads very well, so far as it goes, but let us commence an investigation of the circumstances and see what happens. The Licensing Act 1908 is in operation, and section 200 of that Act reads: — (1) After the grant of a publican’s license, no bar, beyond the one bar stated on the license shall be opened or used in or upon the licensed premises. (2) If any person opens or uses more than the one stated bar for the sale of liquors, or knowingly permits the same to be opened or used for such sale, he shall be deemed to have been guilty of selling without a license. Then we come to the license so granted itself. An extract from it reads as follows: — “Whereas the Licensing Committeehas by certificate dated the authorised the issue to of a Publican’s License for the House to be known as the and having only one bar therein and no more.” Then the license goes on to state that the licensee is licensed to sell and dispose of liquors in any quantity on such premises between certain hours, on such days as his premises are permitted to be open. So far so good, but then comes the query, what is a bar? That question is answered by section 4 of the same 1908 Licensing Act, which reads thus: — “Public bar or “bar” means any room, passage or lobby in any licensed premises open immediately to any street, highway, public place, or public thoroughfare, wherein the public may enter and purchase liquors. The phraseology of the last section quoted, seems on its face clear and plain, but we have in addition the decision of his Honour, Judge Denniston in the case of Rex v. Cronin (1898), that the words, “open immediately to any street” means that a person must be able to enter the bar direct from the street, without going through any intermediate room or passage.” Very well then, although section 36 of the Licensing Amendment Act of 1910 practically defines the sphere, and sets out the restricted conditions under which a female can be employed in or about the bar of an hotel at certain times, and having regard to other circumstances, it seems to me that a female can still be legitimately employed in any portion of an hotel (other than the “bar”) in any capacity (including that of dispensing liquors) regardless of section 36 of the Licensing Amendment Act of 1910. As a matter of fact, the number of “bars” in licensed hotels throughout New Zealand are very much less than most people seem to imagine, and consequently the number of real “barmaids” employed are 'probably just as much over estimatedFor years past it has been customary (for purposes of convenience) to call certain compartments in an hotel “private bars.” The term, however, is a misnomer, there is no such thing.. It is either a “bar” or it is not a “bar,” and if it is not a bar, how can a. barmaid be illegally employed in it during open hours? To put the matter in a nutshell. It seems apparent that any female can ■be legally employed in any capacity, and in any part of an hotel except the “bar” without being registered as a barmaid, irrespective of her duties.. Truly this is farcical, and must surely be the result of slipshod or ill-considered legislation with a vengeance, and, in effect, really forms a further example of the difference between working theory and working under practice. —I am, etc., J. S. PALMER, President L.V.A. of New Zealand. Auckland, 26th. June, 1911. A SOUTHERN LICENSEE'S VIEWS. (To the Editor of the “L.V- Gazette.”) Sir; —1 read . with considerable interest Mr. ; J. S. Palmer’s very able letter appearing in your paper on the 15th Inst., and dealing with;.the above subject. I must say at once that I am with Mr. Palmer in the opinion that both the Licensing Committee

and the so-called “leaders of the Trade” in Auckland have gone outside the law, in practically placing under a ban those hotels and hotelkeepers who desire to fulfil their legal obligations to supply refreshments to their customers. I am far from being an advocate for the indiscriminate supply of liquor to all-comers, and I recog nise fully that, in the interests of the individual, as well as of the State, there must be limitations in the supply of liquor. But, while the law re- . mains as it is, while it continues to recognise the equality of the sexes, and places women on precisely the same footing as men, giving them a voice and a place in both the national and general government, I contend — the law being as it is—that no Licensing Committee has the right to say to any hotelpeeker “You shall not supply any woman who enters your establishment with a glass of ale, or wine, or spirits as the case may be.” The attitude thus adopted places a practical affront upon any number of decent, law-abiding reputable women, and compels the hotel licensee to pass that affront on to women whom he knows to be worthy of better treatment and consideration. To my mind, however, the surprising part of this business is not so much the attitude of the Auckland Licensing Committee, the members of which may have some reason to believe that they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the Trade generally, as the absurd decision of “the leaders of the Trade” in Auckland not to supply women with liquor for consumption on the premises. I was gratified to find by Mr. Palmer’s letter that the president of our New Zealand Licensed Victuallers’ Association is opposed to that decision, and to know that his protest has been entered against it, and that the Trade generally had protested at the meeting of Jaunary 21st, 1909, “by an almost unanimous vote,” against the adoption of the proposals of which this formed part. I understand these proposals embodied a so-called scheme of reform, put forward by a leading Auckland brewer —the scneme itself being both ill-considered and impracticable so far as the retail interests are concerned. The gentleman alluded to is a member of several clubs and a man of independent means, who can take his glass of liquor when and how he pleases- I cannot believe that if he had had any practical acquaintance with the retail trade he would have suggested such a handicap upon the business of the licensee as this decision not to supply women involves. My protest must be entered against it, because I foresee that the decision of the Auckland Licensing Committee establishes a precedent that may work incalculable damage to the Trade by driving any number of “moderates” into the camp of the Prohibitionists. Why, I am not sure that I would not vote No-License and National Prohibition myself, if I entered an hotel with my wife and asked for a glass of wine for her and one for myself and received the reply that the Auckland licensees are now forced to make, “Sorry Sir, I cannot supply this lady, but you can have what refreshment you please.” . I should certainly refuse to accept liquor where the licensee declined to serve my wife and most certainly my shadow would never darken his door again. The Prohibitionist attitude on this business is understandable. He, or she, does not believe in the supply of liquor to anyone, regarding it as baneful and injurious alike to both sexes. But- to those of us who see no harm, but rather good, in the moderate use of stimulants, there is something particularly appalling in the idea that those who are at “the top of the Trade” should furnish our opponents with a weapon that can, and doubtless will, be used effectively against us, and at the same time arouse active antagonism on the part of those upon whom a grievous disability is placed, so far as Auckland hotelkeepers are concerned. I could say more upon this subject, but will close with this expression of opinion, that it is a great pity the gentlemen in Auckland, who are regarded as our “Trade leaders,” should not have studied the question better before coming to the decisions that were arrived at with a flourish of trumpets in the early part of 1909. —I am, etc., SOUTHERN LICENSEE, June 23rd, 1911.