COMPENSATION TO PUBLICANS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1816, 16 April 1888, Page 2

COMPENSATION TO PUBLICANS.

TO THK EDITOR. FIR, — There appeared m your columns aorne time ago a leading arlole on the question of cornpenaatlon to publicans, m *hiah you ch!m for them the right to compensation for loaa suataiued, la cisc tho people of Naw Zealand deoidard for prohibition. I fall to sco myself what right they wonld bnve, and If there txisted any nuoh right why fa It that the Legislature hasnotreoognistd it ? Llosnaes ara refused, as a matter of faot, by the Liceoßing Benches every year, m England, Ireland, and Scotland, as wall as In the colonies, and m no oaae has compensation been granted, and In many cases not even aaked for. And why, I ask should a change be made and a new vested Interest be created m the publtoans favor, merely beoauae we ask that the power now m the hands of the Lloenaing Kenches Bhonld be given to the paople themselvee. The law altogether Ignores any Buch thing as vested interest, and has done bo for centuries. Mr Kaab, Q. 0., standing ooaneel to the L'cenaed Victuallers' Society m England, m September, 1883 wrote as follows :— "I am sorry to say, having looked into the question exhaustively, that there cannot be the smallest doubt that no such thing as vested Interest exists, and that the Maßtetrates oan refuse to renew the lioerse of the largest most useful and best conducted hotel m England. I daresay thiß will staager many owners, bus it is high tfme that the trade fully recognUed their position. . . The mere mention of the term vested interest infuriates every Oourt-from the Qaeen'a Bench downwarda. 1 Sr, theae fctUatnauta by Mr Naah are fully ' borne out by judgments given by Mr 1 Jaatlce Field, and Ale Baron Pollock, In • the Court of Q leen'a Bench, and also by : other Jflngliab j udgea. and I a New Zealand j Judges Richmond, Johnaton, Gillies, and t Williams have given decisions- involving . the same principle. A decision h»3 also, f quits racjntly been given m the Supreme 3 Court of the United States, aad which is 3 of considerable iutereat. It cama before r the Court m thiß wise. A brewer, was r indicted for a uuiaance under the State 1 enactments recently passed m Ken^e to ' give effect to tho prohibitory aineudment B made to the State Constitution Bonn two j or threa years ago. The State Court t ordered him to stop the nuisance by the j discontinuance of brewing He appealed f against thla judgment o Q the ground that i, the State had violated 1 ighta guaranteed to 3 citfzms of the States by the Federal Constitution, and claimed that if he muat discontinue bis business the State must compensate him for lobb suatained by depreciation m the value of hla brewing 1 plant, etc., The brewer's claim was upt held m the Oonrt m which it was heard » by the judgment of a judge ouriously B enough nsnjed Brewer. It was then tried a m the Kansas Supreme Court, when the i jadgmeLt of Judge Brewer was reversed, f Appeal was then made on behalf of the y brewer, and then it came to the Supreme c Oourt of the United State.. Immense 1 intereat was taken la the proceedings alike t by thoso irtereated m tha liquor trade . and tho frieoda of prohibition. The ) Judsment of the Oourt whioh is worth . giving at some length, is this.— , "The proposition and the argument . made m support of It equally concede that • the right to manufacture drink for one's , personal use la subjaot to the condition i that such manufacture doea uot endanger 1 or affect tho rights of others, . . By \ whom or by what anthority is It to be , determined whether tho manufacture of ; particular articles of drink, either for 1 general übs or for the personal use of the makor, will injarloualy affect thepabtlc? ; Power to determine auoh questions, so as to bind all, muat ex's! somewhere, elaa aoolety will le at the mercy of the few who, regarding only their own appetltaa or pa s;ona, ra*y be willing to Imperil the peace and security of the many, provided only they are permitted to do as they please. Dnder ouc ayßtem that power ia lodged with the legislative branchaa of the Government, , . . It is diffioult to perceive any grouud for the judiciary to declare that the prohibition by Kansas of the manufacture or sale within hor .limits of intoxicating llquora for general uaa there aa a beverage is not fairly adapted to the end of proteciing the community against the evila whloh confessedly result from the excessive use of ardent spirits. There ia here no justification for holding that the Stats, nuder the gulae merely of police regulation, ia aiming to deprive the 01-fzim of his constitutional rights ; for we cannot shot oat of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public Bafoty may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks. Nor can we ignore the fact eatablished by atatlatlca, accessible to everyone, that the disorder, pauperism, and crime prevaleat In the ojuntry are m large "measure dlreotly traceable to this evil. If, therefore, a State deema tha absolute prohibition qf the manufacture aad eale within her Hmltß of intoxloatlng llquora for other than medical, scientific, and manufacturing purposes *to be neoeaaary to the peace and security of aoolety, the Courts cannot, without usurping legislative functions, over-ride the will of tha people as thus expressed by their chosen representatives. . . And co, if m the judgment of the Legislature the manufacture of Intoxioatlogllqaora for the maker's own use as a beverage would tend to cripple, If not defeat, her effoita to guard the community againat ths evils attending the exoossivo use of such liquora, it is not for the Courts, upon their views aa to what is best and safest for the commuoity to disregard the legislative determination of that question. . - . It ia easy to )O seen that the entire scheme of Prohibition, aa embodied In the Constitution and lawa of Kinsaa, might fail If the right of each oltizm to manufaoture intoxicating liquors for hla own ueq as a baverage we.ro recognised. Such a right doea not inhere In oi iz^nahlp. Nor on It ba said that the Government lnterfero with or Impair anyone's constitutional rights of liberty oc of property when they dotormlno that the ni&nutactura and Bale of intoxicating drinks for goneral or individual use as a baverage are or niny hecoraa hurtful to society and to every member of It, and la, therefore, a business m which no one oan lawfully engage. ...

With reference to the assertion tLsfc the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of liquor deprives liquor dealora of their property without due prooesa of law, the Court Baya that ajl property under oar form of government ia aubjact to the obligation that it nhall not be used bo as to injuriously affect the righta of the community, and thereby become a nuisance. Tha State of £anaa had a right to prohibit the liquor traffics. It did not thereby tal«j away the property of the brewers. It airaply abated a nuisance; The property ia not taken away from Its owners; they are only prohibited from using It for a specific p':r.:oco which tho Legislature declared to v. injurious to the community, j

For the reasons Btatod w« are of opinion '■&*- Mug!-r. ho { !,i,, ff i.j, error, baa •lot been df ned by the judgment of the Scpreme Oou-t of Kinaas any rfght, fji'lvijpge, o immunity seourod to him by - the Constitution of the United States; *n 4 if B jadgm?ntin each case 's iccordingly affirmed."— l am, etc. J.D.