ANTI-SHOUTING LAW
PENALTIES ON BARTENDERS
UNION PROTESTS A protest. against certain features of the anti-"snouting" regulations was mado by a deputation representing the Hotel Workers' Union, which waited upon tho Attorney-General (the Hon. A. L. Herdmah) yesterday morning. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh, M.P.,! introduced tho deputation, and the chief spokesman for tho union was Mr. E. Kennedy, who read a- written statement of the union's case.
The union took exception chiefly to the regulation which prescribes that, every bar attendant, other than a member of the family of tho licensee, convicted of permitting "shouting" shall bo disoualified for a period of six months' thereafter from being employed or serving in any capacity in or about any licensed premises. It was urged that this penalty, in addition to a fine was unfair, especially as, owing to the methods adopted in administering the regulations, it was possible that an innocent person might bo convicted. The onus was thrown on the person charged to prove his innocence, and this was made difficult or impossible by reason of tho fact 'that tho bar attendant was not notified of the offeuco at tho time it was committed. The deputation asked for the repeal of the regulation imposing the penalty of six months' disqualification, arid for an amend-' ment of another clause to provide that a person to be charged should bo notified of an impending prosecution at tho time tho alleged offence was committed. The Attorney-General said he was very glad to have heard the deputation, but he wished the members of it to understand that legislation of the character .which they were discussing rriust be drastic, otherwise it could bo avoided. Tho legislation was very carefully considered, and he took tho responsibility for it. But even at the present time drastic as tho regulations were, they were being broken throughout New Zealand. He was informed by tho police that people wore inclined to treat them with contempt. At a time like this people ought not to treat the regulations or tho law with contempt. It was the duty of everybody to respect the.law. He would have very much pleasure in giving special consideration to the representations just mado to him regarding the _ dual punishment a Magistrate-could impose upon a bar attendant. The great difficulty . the police had - to contend with in enforcing the regulations was the lease, with which the law» could be evaded, and this was the principal reason why the regulations had'been made drastic. In some cases it was almost impossible to detect a breach. He would I remind the deputation also' that in order to disqualify a bar attendant for six months, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the attendant has knowingly committed an offence. Arid, of course, if a man knowingly committed an offence, he should be punished. He repeated that he would give consideration to the matter, and if there was injustice ho would try to remedy it, but lie would make no promise to make any change in the regulations. These regulations must be drastic if they Were' to be enforced. It was unfortunate for the barmen, perhaps, but in theso extraordinary days of war we must, have laws and regulations that were extraordinary.
Mr. Kennedy said that the union did not stand for the evasion of the law. Members liad v .been advised to give any person in .charge who tried to "shout" in a bar. .
Another member of the deputation pointed out the very precarious position in which bar attendants found themselves. It wa6 not in their interest to break the law. Often the public wished to break the law, and if the barman did not please the public his conduct might not please the licensee,' in whose interests it was tlitt the regulations should be broken. The whole responsibility was left on the harman, whose position was made very difficult.
MivHerdman said that he realised tlie regulations were not easy of observance; or enforcement, but lie was informed, by the police that since the regulations had been issued drunkenness had decreased.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19161115.2.39
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2929, 15 November 1916, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
676ANTI-SHOUTING LAW Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2929, 15 November 1916, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.