The Globe. SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 929, 16 June 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 1877.

The objection to the Local Option Bill is that it is tyrannical to the publican and to the minority in each district. In dealing with this measure in former articles, we pointed out that it proposes to introduce no new principle into legislation, because the present Act already contains a somewhat similar clause. Mr. Stout’s Bill only proposes to apply it in a different manner. Under the law, as it at present exists, any individual publican can be petitioned against, and have his license cancelled, if two-thirds of the residents of the district so determine. Mr. Stout proposes to take that power from the residents and give it to the ratepayers of the district, who will be called on to express an opinion once every three years only. If the Local Option Bill is tyrannical as far as the publican is concerned, so is the present law. In fact, if there is any difference at all, it is in favour of the proposed measure ; inasmuch as the ratepayers are much less likely to act hastily, and from a sudden impulse, than the entire residents of a district are. Here we wish to notice a misapprehension which appears to exist in the minds of some, as to the practical working of the measure. Our contemporary, the Press, for example, takes exception to the bill on the ground that the poll is to be taken only once every three years. Our contemporary says;— “ Then, again, the poll is only to be taken triennially : so that however great the objections to particular houses, or however willing the district may be to get rid of public-houses altogether, the people must unavoidably put up with them during the whole of that period. A license is to be granted, not for one year, but for three; and when it is once issued, there will be no means of recalling it till the end of the three years. It stands good, under any circumstances whatever, until the next poll.” Our answer to the above remark is, that the Local Option Bill leaves all the existing Licensing Acts in force. If the ratepayers of a district say that no licenses shall be there, then for three years the Licensing Commissioners have no power to grant any, but if the result of the poll is otherwise, then the existing law will be in operation. The Licensing Commissioners will deal with each indivlAual house as they do at present, and will ha? 76 “ their power as heretofore to e> e ? !1 My conducted houses. The objeehon to the proposed bill is the p-wer which it gives to the majority of ty7 anm f m .» over the minority. The point 18 strongly urged by our contemporary the Lyttelton Times. It is a “ new principle in legislation,” it is held “ in these countries that because some men are drunkards, no one shall be allowed the liberty of the sober use of stimulants —unless he can have them in comparatively large quantities in his own house.” We would point out that under the existing laws restrictions are placed on the use of stimulants —even the sober use of them. It will be generally admitted, we suppose, that the closing of public houses on. Sundays and after eleven o’clock at night, is for the moral and social wellbeing and convenience of the majority of the community. There are a minority who wish the publichouses to be kept open all night, and on Sundays also, yet their liberty is not considered. The law takes for granted that restrictions must be imposed, all we have to decide is the extent of them. If it could be shown that prohibition would bring about the results claimed for it, viz., the removal of the frightful amount of crime, misery and poverty which result from our drinking customs, then total prohibition would be the logical outcome

of our present restrictive laws. We grant that tlie liberty of the minority would be interfered with, but it is better that they should be inconvenienced than that the majority should suffer financially and morally, for the evil conduct of the few.