THE LOCAL OPTION LICENSING BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 4170, 8 July 1876, Page 4

THE LOCAL OPTION LICENSING BILL.

To the Editor.

Bib,—The introduction to the House of Representatives by Mr Stout of his Local Option Bill, has afforded an opportunity for the publication in the ' Otago Daily Times of one of those characteristic articles which from- time to time'appear in that journal on some phase or other of the many-sided temperance question. These articles are evidently au written by the same hand, though ' as* evidently tinder varied moods. The consequence' is that though they have all a 'striking family likeness which unmistakably mark their common parentage they -are- r yeVas tinlike in other particulars as it is jjossible for them to be. A little close com : parison of the '.Times' liquor articles, will convince 'any one that every article contradicts some other article, and is more frequently inconsistent with itself. Yet the ' Times' slnll writes on, and though its inconsistencies,' contradictions, and fallacies have been again and; again ex posed, it still assumes all the airs of ftir Oracle, and reiterates its staleargumentawhichhave over and over again been shown to be no argu:m*nts; reasserts fallacies which lave been exposed a. hundred times, and boldly restates propositions, the sophistry of which . has been exposed till one is absolutely nau seated by the constant repetition. The 'Times' article of Tuesday on the Local Option Bill is worthy of those on kindred subjects which have preceded it, and of the Cwise in, the interest of which it was written. I understand the licensed victuallers are to pleased with thiß article that they are getting it printed in large quantities, that it may be distributed over a wider area than is covered by the limited circulation of your contemporary. Well, sir, the licensed victuallers are welcome to the championship ©- the "Times," and I wish them joy of " all the strength it will lend to their cause. Certainly, if the article of Tuesday is the best it can say against Mr Stout's Bill, the f.iends of the measure have no cause for alarm. If the 'Times' leader be stripped of the abuse directed against men as earnest, as disinterested, as philanthropic, aye, and as sensible, too, as its writer ; of the discussion of measures in the Bill which the Bill does not contain, and of utterly irrelevant matter, there will be very little indeed left, which really deals with the issues raised by the Local Option Bill, which were, as I think, fairly stated in last evening's Star. I have carefully read the ' Times's' article, I have more carefully re-read it, and still X have great difficulty in finding out the particular point at which the writer takes hold of and fairly grapplos with Mr Stout's Bill. It may be that lam " i nil i' the up tacks" as we used to say north of the Tweed, but positively I cannot very clearly make it out yet. Is this the question en which the ' Times' woald join issue with Mr Stout ? "Are we to consent to be governed by the will of the majority in all those matt-rs of our social. economy which are ever under dispute ?" It it is, then Scotchman-like I would answer this question bv asking another—"Are we to be governed by the minority, or are we not to be governed at all but everyone being a law unto himself do .jnst what seemeth good in his own eyes?'* Possibly the 'Times'will answer niy question, and then I promise to answer

his. , It has again .and again been pointed- ont that there is in reality no principle which touches the liberty of the subject involTed as between presently oxistiug licensing laws and a Local Option or Permissive Bill. The licensing laws necessarily interfere more or leeß with what the ' Times' calls the liberty of the subject, and a very small minority—viz., a minority of three or four licensing commissioners, control the majority "in their life's actions." The questions between the licensing laws as we see them in active operation and the Local Option Bill, is not ahall the liberty of the subject be interfered

with and his life's actions be controled, but who shall interfere Vith and control him, and to what extent shall such interference and control go It is wonderful- that the ' Times' cannot see this. There is ail old adage which may perhaps explain the circumstance, It says : " There are none bo blind as they who won't see." The ' Times' docs not like an appeal to the people, and thinks it a weakness on the part of Mr Stout that he is "beset with the notion that a referrence to the people wil aet everything right, more or less." Well, I guess that afterall, the ultimate appeal on all questions must be the people. We have out frown the notion that either kings or priests ave divine right to govern or to teach, and consequently all questions affecting our social and corporate life, no matter how "abstruse to highly-trained minds" they may be, must be settled by the people for the simple reason that there is no one else to settle them, and I hardly know how they are to be settled but on the old maxim that M most votes carry." I wll say nothing about the utterly irrelevant nonsense talked by the 'Times' a3 to "the extremely unpleasant lengths to wh.ch it (the principle of the rule of the majority on such matters a« the sale or non-sale of alcoholics) may readily be pushed." Time enough to deal with the ditlieultics indicated when they arise. - Besides, the fallacy of tho objection has been exposed a hundred times. Meanwhile the question is—shall the publichouses, every one of which, according to the statement of Lord Aberdare when Home Secretary, tends to aggravate the public rates, and to create disorder and to cause an additional necessity for the police, or shall they not, be bro\ight moro directly under popular control. I trust the Legislative Assembly will, by a large majority, for the second reading pf Mr Stout's Bill say " They shall!"—I am, &c, Citizen. Dunedin, July 7.