OPPONENTS OF HOTELS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1741, 5 May 1913, Page 6

OPPONENTS OF HOTELS.

WANTED: A NEW BILL, j DEPUTATION BBKS MR. MASSISY. (Dy IVloitraph.—l'reM Association.) Auckland, May 3. A deputation bclivwi forty ami fifty strong, ii-prcM'iiting various J'rohibuion and Temperance bodies in a/id .'nound I'lio city, was introduced lo the I'remii'r this afteriKnin by Mr. A. Harris, M.l'. The chief object of I lie int, l-vieu- was to ask the (Invei-nnient to .--o amend Hit) present licensing lcgis'laimn as to .subslilnte a bare majority for tile Ihree-lilths system; (i> abiili-h (lie fiiur years of grace to tho trade in the event of National Prohibition being carried, and, meantime, to pass logi.-lalion imposing thi> observance of a weekly half-holiday by hotel keepers, and (lie rebfrid ion of each hotel to 0110 b.".r. Mr. Musscy, in replying, pointed out that earlier in the week a. Presbyterian deputation had waited 011 him, and his reply had (hen been that there was a great d<<il of important legislation to bo I prepared for the earning session. The-.i-measures were of far g 1 eater urgency to the country than the liquor question, which could not come beloro the people until next election. As soon as Cabinet the question whether a Liquor Bill should be proceeded with this session or not would bo' decided. His reply to the present deputation must bo tho .same as that given to tho Presbyterian deputation. "Kegarding tho baro majority," added tho .Premier, "I think members of tlio deputation have overlooked this point: There has already been a division of tho present Parliament oil tho question of reducing tlio majority from three-filths to 55 per cent., and the division then showed that thero was an actual majority of ten against tho proposal. If that is tlie opinion of the present Parliament, how do you hope to see a bare majority proposal put through A deputationist: It means, then, that a change of. Government will ho' n-eccssary. Mr. Massoy: Every member of tlie present house is pledged one way or another on this matter c-xocpt myself. I believo I am the only member who is not pledged to one or other of the majority proposals. Tlio liquor question has never been mado a party measure. In Mr. Seddon's time tho Government brought down a Liquor Bill and said: "There is the Bill; thero are tlio proposals; but we don't inteful to .use tho party whip. Everyone can use his own discretion. If we brought down a Liquor Bill Wo should do exactly, tho same. Speaking on the question of private bars, Sir. Masscy said that lie was prepared to consider tho introduction ol /specific regulations regarding t'hc restriction of the number of bars to cac'h hotel. As to the proposal to closo all bars on a weekly hall-holiday, that was a wide and far-reaching question, but 110 was also prepared to consider that matter along with, the other one. A member: Wo want a square deal for all tilings. Mr. Masscy: A very fjood principlo to go on. As a matter of iact, I happen to know that there will be a provision in tho next Shops and Oiiices Bill dealing with hotels, but not in the direction indicated by tlio deputation. However, I hope that when tub next Liquor Bill conies along a square deal will be given to all partieo.