THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 2933, 13 July 1872, Page 2

THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

To the Editor,

Sir,— l have read the report published in your columns of the meeting held at the Masonic Hall on the [evening of the 10th inst,, re the Permissive Bill, also your article criticising the same, and upon comparing the various speeches made at that meeting with your article I am inclined to think that you have disco cred the point upon which the rock splits, viz. “Revenue v. Morality,” and therefore accord to your speech, owing to your having discovered that fact, the cream of the argument, 'i he difficulty seems io lie in two means—lst, the keeping up of the revenue; 2nd, the keeping down immorality. I will give you my humble ./pinion upon the whole matter, and divide my argument into three, viz.—First, the keeping up of the revenue. The law says that all spirits, wines, beers, and other fermented or distilled liquors shall pay a duty of so much per gallon (as the ease may be) on all such imported before it can be re. tailed or offered for consumption; and so much per gallon (as the case may be) for all such manufactured within the Colony, retailed or offered for sale. I allow this to be a just and proper means of raising revenue, and look upon it in the same light g.s the tax upon our tea, sugar, coffee, and all other articles of daily use an 1 consumption, and am perfectly willing to pay my fair share of such —I call it legi mate—taxation; and as such I believe all will willingly bear it, 'ihe licences for hotels (specially allowed to sell liquors) as a source of revenue, I object to. Hotels, everyone knows, are a necessity for travellers and others requiring temporary accommodation —i c., lodging and provendor, &c. ; but why they should, on that account, have special licences for selling intoxicating drink no one can understand. The profit in the trade is either so great, or the hotel (in the proper acceptation of the word) is converted into a mere dram shop, else there would not be the one hundred and one of those miserable places, called hotels, in Dunedin, nor would the proprietors thereof be able to keep up such flash appearances, and fleece the foolish by such devices as “ Yankee grab,” playing for drinks, &c. A hotel should, in my opinion, be merely a public place of residence where persons, travellers or others, could be supplied with board, lodging, attendance, &c., and le licensed merely for enjoying that privilege, and simply to answer the purpose of accommodating wayfarers, which brings me to my number two—“ the raising of morality,” In my opinion, the way to do this as regards the liquor traffic, is to allow it to be sold, after having paid its legitimate duty to Government, by any other tradesman inclined to deal therein, without having to pay any exceptional tax any more than they pay for selling their tea, sugar, coffee, spices, raisins, currants, drapery, boots, shoes, or any other articles of consumption, the revenue accruing to the Government would be paid on the liquors so sold or consumed, in the same manner as the revenue accruing from the other articles. Let the “ moral suasion ” be applied rather to the “drunkard” or immoderate consumer than to the sellers ; let his or her punishment he made heavier, either by fine or imprisonment, than it is now; don’t allow the “liberty of the subject ” to crop up in the case but make the p- ualties so heavy for being drunk as would compel the thirsty souls to consider their pockets and their families and their duty to themselves, both morally and socially, in a better light, than they will ever do under the existing laws and practices of the liquor traffic. My number, thirdly and lastly, is to bet a hundred dollars to a red cent, that should such principles be ever carried out (which I am afraid they will not) there would b>, as you say, “ more comfort, more prosperity, more happiness, men would be richer, families more moral, crime less frequent, and production more abundant”— an I 1 say consequently a greater revenue to the .State. —Yours, &0., L. Dunedin, July 11, 1872.

{For remainder of Correspondence see Page 4)