Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1871. THE AUCKLAND PRESS AND THE LICENSING ACT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 936, 6 February 1871, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1871. THE AUCKLAND PRESS AND THE LICENSING ACT.

The recent incorporation of the permissive prohibitory clause with the new Licensing Act in Auckland has, as might be supposed, given rise to considerable comment on the part of the press of that Province. On the morning of the day on which the clause passed the Southern Cross in a long article boldly predicted that it could never be carried without modification ; but the result proved them mistaken. Next day they spoke of it as " a sweeping reform, unparalleled in the history of the Province," and looking a little into the future, significantly added—- " Though several honorable members questioned the rapid application of the principle, we mistake the zeal of those who have so persistently pressed the subject on the attention of legislators and the public, if we are not on the eve of an agitation for the practical application of the victory to which the past affords but a faint parallel." We think that so far as the speedy exercise of the new public privilege in many districts is concerned, the Cross' forebodings wilJ be found correct. The people will not long allow such a gift to remain idle in their hands, and the thanks of all are due to the Rev. Mr Edger and the other earnest men whose endeavors to obtain this privilege hove at last been crowned with success.

The Southern Cross' great objection to the permissive veto is, that in the case of wholesale licences, should it 1)3 enforced, Auckland merchant* would be prohibited from selling liquor wholesale, while "so long as one hotel remains in the Province," the publican may deal with merchants in Wellington and elsewhere. The Cross seems to think this a the imkindest cut of all," and concludes its article in these terras :—" The action with reference to wholesale licences will not restrain the liquor traffic ) it will not lessen the

general revenue, but will, if merely strike a blow at our local traders, and work into the hands of Southern merchants."

There appears to us to be but little ground for this objection. It is by no means likely that the wholesale trade will be vetoed before the retail, nor that " one hotel " where intoxicants are sold " to be drunk on the premises " will remain after the wholesale traffic has ceased • therefore the Cross need be under no apprehension that the law will " work into the hands of Southern merchants" to the detriment of local traders. The first object of attack on the part of the friends of prohibition will of course be the retailing of the liquor, and if this be stopped the stoppage of the wholesale trade will follow it as a matter of necessity.

The Thames Advertiser has a great objection to the new licensing bill, and poinr.s out several serious faults; but to its mind the most serious fault of all is the permissive clause. We are surprised to find our Thames contemporary resuscitating the oft-refuted fallacy about interference with the right of the minority. A correspondent of another journal, writing under the singular title of " The Intelligent Vagrant," criticizes the Advertiser as follows : "' We are governed too much !' And so we are! Here are a Permissive Association and a Permissive Bill, and I find no sympathy in my opposition to either except from that highly indepen dent journal the Thames Advertiser. In a singularly lucid and straightforward leader this morning, it asserts the truly noble and British privilege of its right to get drunk whenever it may choose. It says, ' Our forefathers had long struggles to deliver themselves from the tyranny of despots.' So they had 1 Let anyone look at Hogarth's picture of 'Gin Lane,' arid lie will see something of a tyrant that the people had considerable difficulty in getting rid of. Those were the days of tree trade in Gin, when publicans held out the inducement that \m (heir premises you could get drunk and a clean bed of straw to lie upon for one shilling; and those are the glorious days that the Advertiser and I wish to see back again. Down with despotism ! Suppose I choose 10 drink every penny I possess, what business is it of any person if my wife and children starve 1 In the words of the Advertiser, ' The friends of freedom and progress must now take care that they do not allow themselves to be bound in such purely • self-concerning matteis as meats or drinks by a majority.' Dear me, how often the name of progress is invoked in aid of a progression that resembles the crab's."

It is often argued against a prohibitory law that where the public are opposed to such a measure it will be a dead letter, inasmuch as the traffic will continue, in spice of any law to the contrary. The permissive plan is not open to this objection, as where the majority or even a considerable minority of the inhabitants desire that liquor shall be sold, they need only waive their privilege of veto, and matters will remain as before. It is impossible that under the Permissive Bill the traffic in intoxicating liquors can be vetoed unless there is a strong 'public feeling — an overwhelming majority — in favor of doing so. We hope ere long to see this measure become law in other places than Auckland. We are confident that in any place where it comes into effect, many districts will rejoice to avail themselves of its provisions. The boon is one that will not be despised by any thoughtful constituency