THE LICENSING ISSUE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18415, 23 June 1925, Page 8

THE LICENSING ISSUE.

PROPAGANDA HOARDINGS.

CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION. An application from the North Canterbury Provincial Council of the Licensed Trade came before the City Council last night, asking permission to erect hoardings on the undermentioned sites:—Adjoining Sandridgo Hotel. Sydenham; adjoining Southern Cross Hotel, Moorhouse avenue; adjoining Star Hotel, Addington (outside City); adjoining "Wharf Hotel, "Woolston; adjoining Carlton Hotel, Papanui road. The purpose for which the' hoardings were required was to display placards in defence of the continuance of the trade by way of reply to prohibition placards at present being displayed on hoardings in the City licensed to an advertising firm. The By-laws Committee recommended that the application be granted for the sites within the City boundaries. Cr. E. McCombs said tho committee should not have departed from the usual procedure relating to hoardings. She did not know whether it was the intention of the committee to favour the liquor interests, and did not think the Council should allow such advertisement on tho hoardings at all. In iinv event, tho liquor peoplo could have hired space on existing hoardings as the prohibition people had done. The Mavor said that in view of the previous decisions of the Council, tho recommendation of the committee was out of order. The application should lie on tho tablo for a month beforo action could be taken. Cr. C. P. Agar said the proposed hoardings would be erected on tho properties of tho applicants, and ho was informed the Council had no power to object to the hoardings if erected. Tho application was made only as a matter of courtesy. Tho Mayor said the application would have to wait for a month. Cr. W. E. Lcadley said tho Council should obtain a legal opinion, for the present application differed materially from those relating to ordinary advertising, lie moved to that effect. Tho Mayor said that all enquiries could be made while tho application was held up for a month. Personally, he objected to tho display of liquor and anti-liquor placards on hoardings. Cr. A. W. Beaven said tho proposal meant increasing the number of hoardings, and tho Council had already decided that there were too many hoardings. Cr. A. McKellar said tho applicants could erect hoardings on their own properties to advertise their own businesses. Tho proceduro in tho past wis to grant an application if tho Council desired, and then to hold tho issue of the licenso over for a month, in the event of objections being received. Cr. Agar moved that the application be granted. ■, Cr. Beaven moved an amendment that tho matter should be referred back to the committee.

Cr. E. MeCombs said sho objected .to tho Council granting special privileges to a class in the community who were not. working in the best interests of J /ho community.

Cr. A. D. Ford said tho Council wa« not discussing tho liquor question,"but a matter relating to hoardings, Tho Mayor said the issue raised was not alone hoardings, but what was proposed to be put on the hoardings. The issuo was the greatest moral issue tho-fc had come before the Council in the past ten years.

Cr. C. P. Agar said the council should refrain from participating in 'the liquor and anti-liquor agitations. He suggested that the Council should refuse tho present, applications, and should also instruct the Town Clerk to refuse to sanction the No-License plac ards on the hoardings. Cr. D. G. Sullivan moved the previous question, and tho Mayor said that according to the Standing Orders such a motion could be debated. Cr. E. H. Andrews said it would be better to refer tho matter back to tho committee to enquire into the legal position. Tho Mayor said the Council had a right to object to the matter to be displayed on a hoarding erected by a man on his own property. Cr, Leadley: Not if he is advertising his own goods. The Mayor: These people are not. Cr. Leadley: That is the whole question.

Cr. W. J. Sim said the whole question was whether tho Council "had power to deal with the applications, a T .d that point should be ascertained first of all.

Tho Mayor said he would put the motion relating to "the previous question," which was tantamount to a refusal of the application. , . The motion was lost by 9 vote,s to 8, the voting being:—Ayes (8): Crs Beaven, Carey, Du Feu, Ford, Carr, McCombs, Sullivan, and the Mayor. Noes (9): Crs. Agar, McKellar, Andrews, Anderson, Leadley, Aschmau ; Sim, Cooke, and Butterfield.

An amendment to refer the report and application back to the committe;) was carried by 14 to 3, Crs. Agar, MoKellar, and Anderson being the minority. On being'put as tho substantive motion, the proposal to refer back was carried by 12 to o, the minority being Crs. Agar, Carr, McCombs, Sullivan, and the Mayor.