The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, APBIL 18, 1888. THE COMPENSATION QUESTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1818, 18 April 1888, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, APBIL 18, 1888. THE COMPENSATION QUESTION.

Our correspondent " J.D." returns to the charge on the subject of compensation to publicans, and m so doing has performed the feat known to the Japanese as hari-kari or hako-dadi (\?e are not sure aa to the orthography), that is to say has slain himself with his own sword. For the only proposition m his letter of yesterday which is worthy of being called an argument upon his side of tho question tells directly against him, and proven exactly the reverse of that which it is adduced to prove. Wo refer of course to the parallel drawn b: tween the abolition of liquor licenses and the abolition of slavery. J.D.s syllogism is this : — Slavery and liquor licenses are alike vested interests ; slavery was abolished without compensation to those who held a vested interest therein, ergo, licenses should be abolished without compensation. But unfortunately the second proposition is the reverse of fact, as many millions were paid to extinguish the vested interests of slavery, hence logically J.D.s conclusion should be exactly reversed. As to tho parallel he seeks to establish between soap and candle makers and publicans on the ground that their establishments are alike nuisances, and his argument that the public has ns much right to suppress one nuisance as another, J.D. omits to take into account the fact that soap and candle makers do not pay a license to the State to carry on a business specially regulated by law. Were it otherwise' we should hold that the soap and candle makers would be entitled to compensation if the State suddenly put a stop to the business for which they had paid a license. As for the remainder of his letter it is throughout a consistent example of the petitio j)rincipii. He assumes for us positions which wo never took up and then proceeds to show that such positions are untenable - this is the ancient device of putting up men of straw for the special purpose of knocking them down. As thus :He asserts that " nothing is taken from the publican when his license is discontinued" from which he of course deduces that there is rothing to compensate him for. Then again, he asserts that, "as he would still retain his premises " therefore "he could not claim compensation for that " and finally arrives at the conclusion that the compensation " must bo for the loss of profit which the publi can had reason to expect ho would receive if his license had boon renewed." Now not a word was over said by us to imply that we thought that future anticipated profits should be taken into consideration, (and wo may here say tlint we do not hold nny such opinion) but is J.D. Hhftblo io .see or unwillingly to admit that costly pretnjsoii preciou nnd furnished for hotel purposes are not adapted for other purposes, and that to compel a man suddenly to devote them to other purposes is to inflict upon him serious loss. It is that loss for which compensation ought m justice to be given. As wo have already said if a reasonable notice (we have mentioned jive years) were given of the coming into operation of an absolute focal Option [ Law then opportunity would bo afforded to turn hotel properties to different account without the incurring of hoavy loss, and m that case compensation need not perhaps bo provided for, but unless some such notice be given, if it be demanded as J.D. demands that the vote of, it may be a chance majority, shall have the effect of suddenly putting a stop to a business until then lawfully carried on, then wo are firmly of tho opinion that tho licensee ought m justice to be protected against loss, which may amount indeed to ruin. We again say that the judgment of the United States Court to which J.D. once more adverts proves only that the license-holder has no legal right to compensation, but that is not tho question at issue — we admitted this point at the outset — tho whole position is not the question of a legal right, but a moral right, and we do 110 1 believe that it is permissible to bring about what may be a good object by unjust means, that is to Bay through the infliction of injustice, We still hold that to act as J .D. would have the Legislature to act would bo to do this very thing, and we repeat 'that the triumph of . Local Option, oven of prohibition principles m only delayed by those who like J.D. refuse to admit fchftt there is any such thing as fair-dealing required ag between tho public and the 1/censeep.

"Houan on I-rgir.''— " Bough on Itoh '»" cures skin humor's, eruptions, ring wprra tetter, suit rheum, frosted foot, 'chilblaina, itch, ivy poison, barbers' itch, l$