THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1872.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1125, 6 March 1872, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1872.

During the sitting of the Licensing Bench, held yesterday, a question cropped up which is well worthy of consideration not only by the Justices of the Peace who usually constitute that Bench, but also by the general public. That is whether the practice of indiscriminate granting of licenses should be continued, or whether, under ordinary circumstances, before]any license is granted, the question should not be seriously considered whether the public convenience requires it. We have no intention of interfering in the quarrel between the parties by whom the question was raised, but will take the abstract principle as applicable to the welfare of the community at large. It has long been the practice at Home, and even in some of the towns in this Colony, particularly in Christchurch and Dnnedin, when an application was made for a new license, for the Bench of Justices to consider whether the requirements of tho residents in the district in which the new licensee intended to operate, justified them in granting the application. On the other hand, on the West Coast Gold Fields, and particularly in the large towns, the issue of licenses has been looked upon simply as a source of revenue for the Government, and hitherto they have been granted indiscriminately, with very few excep tions, to everyone who could pay the f ee 3. The abuse has grown to such an extent, through the unsaemly haste shown by the Government to snatch at the license-fees, that nearly every shanty that asked it could obtain a license, without the slightest regard to the wishes of the public in its neighborhood, and very frequently against the reports of the police officers ; the only essential being that the money was forthcoming. Visitors to the West Coast towns have always been struck with the excessive proportion which licensed houses bear to the population, and in this particular Greymouth is no exception, indeed, it is a rather conspicuous example. In the town alone there are issued nine wholesale licenses, five bottle licenses, and 44 hotel licenses— in all 58, to a population of about 2500men,women,andchildren,whileinthe suburbs and district between Greymouth and the Teremakau there are an additional 16 licensed houses. This is surely very much in excess of what is required for the public convenience, and yet we find the Bench of Justices yesterday granting another license next door tc a public-house, and within a stone's throw of twenty other public-houses. We admit that the license was in this instance, opposed on private grounds, and with that we have nothing to do, but there is another aspect in which the Justices ought to look at this question— whether they are discharging their duty to tho public by the system of continually adding to the number of these licensed houses, which are already far beyond the requirements of the residents. When Mr Sub-Inspector Hickson was put in the box, he distinctly gave it as his opinion — and his opiniou ought to have been carefully weighed by the Magistrates— "that the public convenience required no more licensed houses in this town, indeed it would be for the benefit of the town if one-half of them were disposed of." We have all been'aware of this for some time, and none more so than the Justices, and also the additional fact that if licenses had not been sown so broadcast over the community, much crime would have been avoided, and the legitimate traders .who go to much expense in erecting large and comfortable hotels far the convenience of the public would have had a better opportunity of reaping a more ample return for their enterprise. It is to be hoped that in future the Justices will be guided by more extended views on this question than those that have hitherto obtained, and that they will not entertain the proposition which was yesterday laid down for their guidance by Mr Perkins, to the effect that "it had never been the practicH here to oppose an application because of the number of other houses in the town, and he thought the Bench should be guided by the practice which had prevailed here." It is just possible that the practice in other larger, and much longersettled towns is batter than our own, and might very well be accepted as a guide for our local Justices when they are next called upon to consider this question.