The Globe. SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 976, 11 August 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1877.

The speech of the Hon. W. Pox, in moving the second reading of the Local Option Bill, appears to have been earnest in its tone and more temperate in its character than such speeches usually are. But it contained nothing new. Pew, we suppose, are prepared to dispute the truth of the assertion, that the trade in alcoholic liquors has always been regarded by the State as a dangerous one, and that it required to be dealt with in a peculiar manner. Nor will it be denied that the past legislation on the subject has failed adequately to cope with the evils of intemperance, and that some new mode of dealing with the question is urgently needed. So far nearly all are agreed. We are also willing to see the experiment tried of placing the power in the hands of the people of a district, of saying whether they want a licensed house amongst them or not. We are quite aware that, if this Bill is carried, a new principle will be introduced, but the importance of the question justifies such a course. With all that Mr. Pox had to say on these points, we cordially agree. But the argument used by him in favor of creating small subdistricts appears to us to be entirely beside the question. Because one licensing district in Auckland is 100 miles long and 50 broad, that is no reason why we should go to the opposite extreme, and constitute districts only 200 yards long, We have already pointed out the monstrous absurdity of the proposal. With reference to the question of compensation, Mr. Pox asks, What was the publican to be compensated for? liis license was granted only for twelve months, and when that time expired the publican had no claim upon them. They compensated a person for the loss of property, but not for privileges. The publican, ho maintained, had his compensation beforehand in the monopoly ho enjoyed, and the opportunities of makirm enormous profits. There was “nothing taken from the publican but his yearly license. Now, as Dr, Wallis put it, wo have no faith in philanthropy at other people’s expense. The law has hitherto recognised the existence of public-houses, and although the license granted is only a yearly one, it practically always is renewed, as long as the house is well conducted. On the faith that the licenses would bo renewed from year to year, publicans go improving their houses, spending largo sums upon them for the public convenience. It is, as the Hon. C. C. Bowen put it, against the interests of society to keep a 1 -oublicau in yearly terror of losing his license, without giving some compensation. The case of new licenses is different. In this case no compensation should lie granted. When on tills subject wo would remark that the law with regard to the granting of new licenses might well be amended. There is no reason whatever why an intend--5 ing applicant for a license should bo

called on to build a house, and spend a large sum, and make it lit for a license, before the Bench could give him a definite answer. Plans of the building, accompanied by guarantees, ought to be sufficient, and would enable the Bench to consider the question free from any pressure whatever. But whether the Licensing Act is altered in this respect or not, we hope the Local Option Bill, if it passes the second reading, will be largely amended in Committee, by the insertion of a compensation clause; by making the majority required to bring the Act into force three-fourths; and by striking out the clauses with reference to sub-districts.