The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1883. The Licensing Act.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 966, 11 June 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1883. The Licensing Act.

During the past week the Licensing i Committees have been sitting in various i districts thoughout the colony, and we have been afforded another proof of the absurdity of some of the provisions of the present Act. We never could see any valid reason for altering the manner in which public-house licenses were granted. The old system worked admirably, and it was comparatively cheap, while what has been substituted is cumbrous, ineffective, and expensive. The chief plea put forward for the change was that the nominee bench was at variance with the cardinal principle ot good government—namely, government of the people by the people. Now, excellent as a principle may be in itself it may be carried too far, and the tendency of modern legislation, it seems to us, is to fall into this mistake. This is especially apparent in our new method of electing licensing committees, which even its. most ardent supporters cannot aver has been successful. One of the arguments in favor of its adoption was that the Committees would represent the popular voice in the different districts; but though you may lead a horse to the water you cannot ma,ke him drink, and the experience of two years has shown j that in many instances the majority of the people feel so little interest in the matter that they will notnominate the requisite number of members much less take the trouble to record their votes. The result is that a party holding extreme views on either side can always secure the return of its own men, who will be governed in their decisions by their prejudices. Let us contrast the old system with the new. Under the former regime we had benches composed of the district Resident Magistrate and other gentlemen who had had some experience in judging the value of evidence laid before them, and who were totally uninfluenced by local considerations. If an hotel-keeper lost his license, he had at any rate the satisfaction of knowing that his case had been fairly judged and that he was only reaping the reward of his own indiscretion, but he certainly cannot have that consolation now, when he has to submit to the ruling of men utterly incompetent to decide a question upon its legal merits. Many astonishing stories have been told of the eccentric decisions of the Great Unpaid, but we fancy that not a few of the examples of “Justices’justice ” could be paralleled in some of the Licensing Committees in New Zealand. Take, for instance, the action of two committees sitting last week in Dunedin, one of which was presided over by no less a person than Mr H. S. Fish, M.H.R. An application for a license was brought before the latter body by a publican at whose house a man was “ lambed down ” in so gross a way that the Resident Magistrate characterised it as one of the worst cases of the kind that he had ever heard of. And yet the Committee did not take away the license from this man, but the hotel of another applicant, who had been once convicted of selling liquor during prohibited hours, although the offence was committed without the knowledge and in the absence of the licensee, was ordered to be closed. A more glaring exhibition of inconsistency could scarcely be given than this, but it is only of a piece with what occurs in many places during the licensing season. Again, the chairman of a second Dunedin Committee announced that the members were unanimously opposed to allowing public-houses to be kept open after eleven o’clock, but as their confr'etes in other parts of the city did not agree with them on this question they decided to grant midnight licenses to any persons who wanted them. This is reducing the local option principle to an absurdity with a vengeance. Here was a body supposed to represent the popular opinion, and yet they had not the courage to act in accordance with their convictions. Coming nearer home, we are afforded a proof in our own neighborhood of another defect in the provisions of the Act. A Committee was elected for the Upper Ashburton district, and when it met on Friday last the members were called upon to determine whether or not two licenses should be granted for that locality. The matter was not only decided in the negative, but it was also distinctly stated that, as in their opinion a public-house would not be needed in the district for a long time, the present Committee would turn a deaf ear to such applications in future. Thus the county is called on to pay for the election of an absolutely useless body, and this is one of many similar instances throughout the colony. When we see what is the result of importing the principle of popular government into little matters, surely common sense will impel the Legislature to alter the provisions of the present Act, or, better still, to return to the old system.