LICENSING QUESTION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4568, 25 May 1923, Page 2

LICENSING QUESTION.

PIERO A SEEKS RESTORATION. FAVOURED BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. The adjourned meeting of the Paeroa Chamber of Commerce was held on Tuesday evening, Mr E. W. Porritt presiding. The business before the meeting was to consider the notice of motion which had been tabled by Mr W. D. Nicholas and seconded by Mr D. Leach, at the meeting held on the 15th instant, and which read as follows:— “That this Chamber urge the Government when bringing down new licensing la,ws to make provision for granting licenses to those towns situated in a no-license area, which have shown by a three-flfths majority at the last election their desire to have licenses ; also to generally give effect to clause 1 of the recommendations of the report of the Parliamentary Licensing Committee, ‘That there should be a redistribution of licenses move in accordance with the heeds of the population in the various districts.’ ” - In moving his notice of motion, Mr he did not in any way apologise for bringing down the notice of motion for discussion. Plainly he had Paeroa in-his mind as the one town in New Zealand that required a license, or licenses. Since the advent of no-license the boundaries of the electorate had been continually changed, and now embraced farming country which ran close to the towns or townships of Te Aroha, Waihou Morrinsville, Hamilton ,Huntly Hikiitala, and Katikati {ill of which had licenses. No-license did not affect the places that were close to the boundary line, and farmers could take in just what quantity of liquor they required without hindrance or the need to give an order, x whereas people living in the townships were continually watched, and in consequence had to declare their purchases. This unfair way was being felt by the people. The eyes of the. law were on Paeroa, and it was Paeroa that got the stigma every time. It was with the view to lifting /this stigma that he had brought the notice forward. Paeroa had at the last election given a threeflfths vote for the restoration of licenses, and he thought- that that was good enough to show the desire of the people of the .town, and he asked why should the minority rule. Referring to the report of the Parliamentary Licensing Committee, Mr Nicholas read the following extract from Mr Hockley’s ; “I would like, Sir, to summarise the most important provisions in the report. First, there is the redistribution of licenses in accordance with the needs of the population. We had a great deal of evidence laid before us indicating that the 1 position was extremely acute as far as the accommodation of the travelling public in very many districts was concerned, and it was borne in upon- the majority of the Committee that the present condition of affairs wasi not satisfactory—that there were, districts with too many hotels and other districts with too few, and that there should be a redistribution of licenses.” It was in this redistribution that Paeroa should participate', continued Mr Nicholas. He would not at this stage advocate what form the license •should take, or whether it should be granted under State or municipal control or any other experimental way. This could be settled later op. New licensing legislation had been, promised this session, and he considered that Paeroa should move to get licenses restored here. Tn seconding the resolution Mr D. Leach said that the present licensing laws were unjust and inequitable. Nolicense had been carried in the Ohinemuri electorate in 1908. Between 1908 and 1911 local option had been proved a failure. The issue had been defeated by the Government, and the majority of the people—the “moderates”—thought, local option was unjust. The Prohibition Party had acquiesced by their silence. > It was 7 generally agreed that the three-flfths majority was grossly unjust, and that a bare majority..should, at all times rule. The notice'of motion was asking for further legislation to overcome those anomaliest Ohineinuri should be placed on an equal footing with other electorates.

Mr Buchanan appealed to the chairman to rule the seconder out of order as he was not . confining his remarks to Paeroa, alone. The chairman over-ruled the objection.

Continuing, Mr Leach said -that what was wanted was that Paeroa should be placed on an equitable footing with other towns. He said the Chamber was raising no precedent in asking for further legislation. They desired local treatment for local in-, justices. Mr Buchanan then, moved an amendment, “That the present licensing laws be not altered in towns except where there is a population of 7000 and upwards.” Mr W. North seconded. Mr Buchanan said that a small town, such as Paeroa, could carry a resolution contrary to the wishes of the majority of the settlers. The voting power, of the bona fide electors would bs ursurped.

In supporting Mr Buchanan’s amendment Mr W. Marshall said that the whole of the licensing laws would have to be altered to give effect to the resolution. He did not think the Chamber could recommend that. Mr G. P. de Castro then moved that lhe voting on the amendment should be taken by ballot, as possibly there were those present who would not care to make , their views known at that stage. This was agreed to. Mr E. Edwards said he considerei that the amendment was a very selfish one. Mr Buchanan was trying to place Paeroa out of it hr fixing a population of a town at 7000. He said that at. the recent election Paeroa had voted 782 for and 382 against (restoration of licenses, thus proving conclusively that the residents were agreed that no-license had been a failure. The travelling public, especially commercial travellers, never

I 1 ' • spent a night in Paeroa if it was at; all possible to get out of the town. Revenue was thus lost tp Paeiroa. The boardinghouse-keepers did the’r best to provide suitable accommodation, and there was a sufficiency of houses, but it was impossible, for them to compete with licensed houses, where the bar trade assisted to make better things possible. The financial aspect had also to be considered. The money which was irrevocably lost to the town through nolicense was enormous. Over £14,000 worth of alcohol had been brought into the district through.the court, and that amount probably only represented a small portion of what was actually spent outside the town. If Paeroa .could be granted restoration, he said, the revenue sp derived must benefit the town. Had license continued in Paeroa t,he four hotels, each paying an annual fee of! £4O ’during the past 15 years in which the town has been dry, would have paid mor J than sufficient to have put down a concrete road from the 'railway station to the Bank of New Zealand. He considered that restoration would be a ?ound business proposition for the town. Two hotels would bring, in £lOOO a year each, which must necessarily benefit Paeroa. Then there was the criminal aspect of no-license. There had been times when’ even the most ardent prohibitionist had endorsed the supply and use of brandy. Under the existing conditions'll was not legal to bring a bottle of whisky into the town without having to declare it, and the -consequence was that liquor was brought in under cover of clothing so as to evade the law. This was a criminal offence, and wh" should criminals be made because of a ridiculous law to which ' the majority of the people of. the town had clearly shown their disapproval ? Mr Buchanan said that Mr Edwards had raised a bogey about accommodation in Paeroa. He contended that accommodation in Paerpa was equal to that of Monrinsville, which was a licensed town. Travellers had told him that they preferred to spend the night in Tte Aroha in preference to Monrinsville, and yet both towns held licenses. As regards the alleged loss of revenue from not having licenses in Paeroa, the speaker said he did not think that the people were silly enough to regard the loss as serious. Mr Edwards had also raised another bogey about the; criminal aspect. The speaker said he could name several men in the town who were now on a sound footing in every respect, yet during the time of licensed houses in the town those same men had been incapable of competently transacting business five days out of six. Then, again, without licenses and drunkards hanging round the comers the womenfolk were free from molestation, and this fact alone was worthy of weighty consideration. Under present ; conditions in Paeroa young men had not the same temptations as they would have if licenses were restored.. It was certainly ba 1 enough for them to bring drink in occasionally under cover of their clothing, but the doors of temptation did not lie at their feet. Mr Vnglar referred to the previous speaker’s remarks about the molestation of women. He said that under license in Paeroa he had riever heard of women being molested. The hotels had always been conducted very creditably, and there had never been any grounds for complaints. He had lived nearly 40 years in the district. in reply to Mr Vuglar, Mr Buchanan said he was not prepared to quote an instance that night. It could not be denied that where licenses existed men were prone to hang round in; a more or less muddled state, often muttering or using filthy language not fit for any woman’s ears. Mr de Castro said he thought that Mr Buchanan’s remarks were inconsistent. with the principle. He did not see why a larger population should have an advantage over a smaller one. Mr L. E. questioned Mr Buchanan’s statement as regards accommodation. He contended that travellers would not stay in Paeroa at ' present because they found that there was no real welcome for them; the 'atmosphere was cold in. the present hotels. Travellers had frequently asked the speaker why Paeroa had not made a move to get licenses restored. Mr Cassrels ®aid he could. not agree with Mr Buchanan as to the molestation of women in towns undei license. He quoted an Instance of a member of his own family having recently been accosted by a drunken man in the streets of Paeroa. The speaker went on to describe how, undei the present conditions, young men from Paeroa went by motor car to'Hiktuaia and other towns for the purpose of getting drink. They drank all they could while in the hotel, and then purchased “booze” to take away and drink on their return journey. Such conditions would not prevail if there were hotels In their own town of Paerpa.

Mr J. T. Brown said that travellers did not care twopence about the drink question in Paeroa. He said that the reason why. they preferred not to stay over night in Paeroa was because of the early hour the first train left Paeroa in the morning,, and also because travellers experienced difficulty in obtaining a good meal at the boardinghouses in time to catcb such an early train. A prominent official of the Commercial travellers’ Association had told him that their association was unanimously in favour of' no-license. A Voice : Question ? Mr Brow argued that if money was spent in drink, then it could not be spent on the women and children, nor in the homes, wheire the money should be spent. The present high cost of. living did not permit of men spending any of their wages on liquor. Mr Taiboys said that he had ow one occasion passed Mr Brown, who was on his way to a certain meeting, and that he was then cartrying a “little pig” on his shoulder. How did Mr Brown account for that action, after the remarks just made by him against restoration of licenses in Paeroa ? (Laughter and applause.)! Mr Brown hastened to explain to the meeting that he was at. that time secretary of the local branch Of the

Farmers’ Union. He several times called meetings of the brtfnclb; but. it seemed impossible to an adequate attendance ot members. He had been advised to get a keg efjbeer to encourage the members to attend a special meeting. The members rolled up all right, said Mr' Brown, drank the beer, and left him to pay for 1L He was still several pounds out of pocket over the business. (A cry of shame, and more laughter.) ■ Mr H. A. Marks said that during the time he had kept an hotel in Paeroa travellers had said to him ove*and over again, “Get back license and Paeroa will go ahead.” Mr P. Brenan said that he did not agree with the majority pf thespeakers. He belonged to the class known as the “moderates.” He felt confident that the vast majority of. moderates would willingly support anything. that would tend to prosper and. benefit Paeroa. He had come to the conclusion that ho-license was an absolute failure. Much had been said by previous speakers regarding morality, said Mr Brenan. He thought that the young men of tp-d.ay were in a nosition to get far more liquor than was good for them. Licensed hotpls, under proper supervision, were more beneficial in Paeroa than the conditions ruling at present. He said that what was good enough for Hikutaia with its scattered settlement was certainly gpod enough for Paerba with its 1800 inhabitants. He thought that the wishes of the majority of any community should be considered. He was not in favour of restoration under the old conditions, x but he thought that any profit derived from the liquor trade should circulate among the inhabitants pf, the town. It should not go outside. He was opposed to the amendment proposed by Mr Buchanan, and would support the original motion. Mr Buchanan said that his reason for wanting a considerable population was because with a small population it would be an easy matter to stuff the rolls. Six hundred people could be brought into the town for the occasion. He felt confident that the fewer the open bars there were the fewerx 'criminals there would be. As regards labour not being so good as it was in the licensed areas, he thought that the times had changed and liquor did not account for it. He went on? to instance labour conditions in the ' local butter factory, wlfere it had been proved that the best labour and; best results were obtained in the nolicensed areas unless the workers were, teetotallers. Mr Cassrels asked what would be the position so fan as the efforts of the Chamber and Paeroa were concerned if the meeting carried the amendment. The chairman said that it would simply indicate that the ..Chamber was opposed to any alteration of the existing conditions. The amendment was then put to the meeting, the voting being 8 for and 25 against., i Messrs Buchanan, Brown, Kenny, North, Marshall, Couper, and Johnstone asked that their votes for; the amendment be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Speaking to the resolution Mr :’Cassrels said he was certain that the result of no-license had not been for the betterment of Paeroa, and :had not accomplished,’ as far as observation went, any good purpose in. the town. On the contrary, it had; deprived the town and district of- the right to retail a commodity openly. Deprivation was not deprivation if ran individual, had the right to purchase that commodity from outside sources, and it merely deprived - the. town of an additional attraction .possessed by neighbouring towns. ; He said that unfortunately the fact of., having no-license did not icmove the evil; neither did it remove the attraction. Hence ‘ the neighbouring districts obtained a greater share of revenue from this district, to which incalculable commercial liarm >had been done / by the fact of it being under no-license. For some years past this district had, in spite of the ,fact that it contained some of the richest pastoral land in New Zealand, ;and that it possessed one of the greatest gold-producing mines in the world, been ill-spoken of,. And why ? asked Mr Cassrels. He thought it was because that best of all advertising agents, the travelling public, spoke of the conditions as they felt and saw them when passing through the town. v The speaker then quoted' figures showing that 20,310 gallons of liquor' at an estimated value of £14,020 had been brought into the district through the court for the year ending December, 1921. Mr Buchanan rose tp a point of order. He said that Mr Cassrels was. quoting figures for the whole of- theOhinemuri electorate. . The mattei" under discussion should be confined' to Paeroa. - The chairman noted the objections and asked Mr Cassrels to apply* his= remarks to Paeroa only. Mr Cassrels, continuing, said that in any case the figures were astounding It must be borne in mind, that these figures concerned liquor imported by written order and declared at the Couthouse at Waihi as being openly purchased and used. How much more, he asked is purchased without declaration in bordering towns, and how much more is spent on other goods in neighbouring towns due to the fact that liquor is openly sold there under license. .Any person suggesting that it was good for a district that an amount exceeding £IO,OOO a year > was spent without; leaving one penny of /profit in thetown was stultifying his own entelligence and insulting the intelligence- > of others. If the opponents to restoration would tell the truth to them--• selves, said Mr Cassrels, they would’ admit that prohibition was commercial suicide, but they thought that; restoration would be losing one of the 1 sheet-anchors of prohibition. If it could be positively shown that the l kind of prohibition that existed here . under no-license was a benefit to the district it would be advisable to continue as at present, but he askedevery friend that supported no-license-to bring facts and figures tp prove .

that any no-licensed area in New Zealand wag better off under r.o-license. It was admitted by both parties that no-license was an error, and wrong in principle and application. If this was so* and if we.were suffering because of it, we should make every endeavour to have restoration. The speaker said we should do more than that, and have restoration in some such way as to Enable us to prove that a satisfactory way of handling the liquor problem could he evolved. Our bigotted prohibition friends, said Mr Cassrels would shout "No, out with it altogether.” If a majority of the people of this country said no, out with it,, the minority must agree, but if. we were tp be democratic, let us be democratic —let the majority rule. If we say the three-fifths majority carried it, let the three-fifths majority restore it. Let all things be equal. If, as is admitted by all parties, the local option issue was so unsatisfactory as to be crossed off the ballot paper, the effects of such unsatisfactory legislation should be altered if the will of a majority of those concerned wished it. This town stoke in no uncertain tone at the last doll, but ,a number of people who had not any interest in the town, direct or otherwise; dictated that Paeroa should remain under this handicap. He said that even. prohibitionists did not approve of the local option poll. They knew enough not.to stay in no-license towns,' which would be expected of them if no-license was the heaven we were told by , our . prohibitionist friends it was. No, said Mr Cassrels, they go to the other place across the border* which'is perhaps because they consider the dry towns heavenly, but lonely, while other towns, were not lonely and were attractive, and we all knew why.' He said we, too, would be attractive if the wishes cf the majority were given effect to, but, he said, the wishes of the majority were not given effect t0,.-and it was a disgraceful state of affairs 1 , and one. which was unfair, unjust, undemocratic. and un-British. Mr Johnstone asked if Mr Cassrels had not quoted figures for the whole electorate. Mr Cassrels said that he was unable to supply the exact figures for Paeroa, but that he was of the opinion that the figures quoted were very largely contributed, to by Paeroa-. Mr Marshall: What about Waihi? Mr W* F. North proceeded to explain the methods of the present licensing laws. He thought that local option had proved a success. The liquor question, as far as Paeroa was concerned, was not being tackled on the right lines. If the Chamber displayed the same,amount of energy on the question of good roads, for Paeroa very much more material benefit would result to the town. .. A-Voice,: No on your life! Mr North said that the liquor question, was not keeping Paeroa back. If . a system whereby better roads could, be maintained was gone into the town -would go ahead all- right. He, too, had met a number of travellers, and they had told him that the accommodation in the no-license town of Mas- : terton was quite as good as the lii censed town of Carterton. In fact, ’ many people preferred to go to 'Car- ■ terton from Masterton to do their ’ business. Records had proved that s convictions for crime were greater 'in a licensed area than in an no- ; license area. ' ; 5 . Mr Buchanan said that in speaking of the time when Paeroa was under license two tradesmen had told him that hotels were no good, to them. The community only, had a certain ’- amount of money to spend, and he - considered that it was not in - their - interests, from a commercial point of view, to have Restoration in Paeroa. Mr Edwards said he considered that Mr Brenan .had put the commercial aspect fairly before the meeting. The voting on the amendment had clearly shown the commercial men’s views on. the question. Bad debts were a ■; matter of principle with, the people from whom they dealt. Referring to , crime, which liquor had been, alleged - to have caused, Mr Edwards said that the Chamber only a few months ago had asked the Department to station an extra policeman in Paeroa in view ? of the increase in orime. Before rio£3icense was carried stock sales had been conducted regularly and successfully in paeroa. Now Hikutaia was the scene of the stock sales. He ventured to say that if there were licens- ■ ed hotels in Paeroa there, .would be far less drinking among the younger men of the town. Under the present conditions men saved up for a-while and. then hired cars and went to Hikutaia regularly. On arrival .there they drank more than was good for them in a short space of time. Thereal curse was the liquor that was - brought away by the young/ men. Whisky was frequently brought into Paeroa, and young men, even lads, of - the town would sneak away into dark f 'corners and drink, the raw spirit, with the elder men. It was obvious that ■ this class of drinking; was infinitely . worse than having an open bar. in ... their *midst, and far more. injurious. ' The speaker said that another reason why travellers preferred to go to Te Aroha or Thames rather than remain in Pae'roa was because • the licensed houses had better sample rooms and - offered: greater facilities for the transaction of’-business-. At this stage Mr Marshall moved a further amendment: "That all towns in New Zealand should be permitted to decide for themselves alone on a bare majority issue whether they should have license or not.” Seconded by Mr Buchanan. Mr Marshall said that he questioned whether the Chamber'was within its rights in taking a resolution on the question of restoration f° r Paeroa. •He considered that it was a matter ■ for the district to decide. He considered, too, that the no-dicense people should be given the same rights to ■decide in the towns. Mr Cassrels : Another red hearing. '{Laughter.) Mr Leach said that there was no •intention to try and upset the last poll. Mr de Castro said he took it that the resolution had been framed in view of prospective legislation pertaining’ to the licensing laws that the