LICENSING MATTERS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4857, 24 July 1925, Page 2

LICENSING MATTERS

DISCUSSION BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

RESTORATION SOUGHT FOR PAEROA

Dissention Among* Members

There was a record gathering ot

members at tlie meeting of tne i'aero a Chamber of Commerce neid m the Coronation Chambers on luesday evening. The president (Mr r. Williams) presided. The principal business before tne meeting was the consideration of two notices of motion stanuing in the name of Mr L. E. Cassrels, Quick despatch -was given to the routine business of the meeting, and shortly beioie nine o clock the members settled down in anticipation of a lively discussion on a top-c upon whien they were divided, ihey were not disappointed. Members, carried away by their own eloquence, held forth on the evils of intoxicating liquors, the morals of the. rising gei.euuion, the progress of Paeroa under no-license regime: and more than one member told “the story of his life” with considerable pathos. In moving “That this. Chamber is oi opinion that the continuance of nolicense under the existing conditions is detrimental: to this town and to the electorate of Ohinemuri generally,” Mr Cassrels pointed . out that the question affected Paeroa.and Ohinemuri only. The chamber was interested in the welfare and progress or the district, and he thought that now was, the time to definitely obtain a ’pronouncement on the aspect.

In seconding the resolution Mr- T). Leach pointed out that the position of local option was. .totally different to-day from what it was years ago when carried. No other electorate in New Zealand had expressed its opinion so definitely on the matter as had Ohinemuri. Other electorates had long since come to the conclusion that local option should be discarded. The moral side of restoration need not concern the' chamber, as that phase would be dealt with under the national issue. No-license locally did not mean that drink was not being consumed. Briefly, drink was going on in the town, without the attendant advantages of . having licensed houses in our midst. He thought the time had arrived when the chamber should move in the matter and agitate foi the commercial advantages that were associated with licensed houses. He was convinced that a far greater number of youths were taking liquoi in the district, which state of affairs, lie contended, would ye considerably lessened if hotels- under proper control existed. There was no gainsaying that a large quantity of spirits was being consumed in the district. The speaker also instanced the matter of better accommodation for the general public under license. Mr W. Marshall moved as an amendment that the matter be adjourned for six months. He said that it was decidedly objectionable that such a subject should be brought before a body of men who were giving their,- time to working in the interests and welfare of the place. It was bound to destroy the harmony of the chamber when so many of the members held such decided and divided views on the liquor question. Continuing, the speaker said it was a great pity that Mr Cassrels of all members, had moved the resolution. He challenged the mover that he was working for personal gain and interest, as he was the owner of an hotel and had an interest in the local, brewery.

Mr Cassrels jumped to his feet and objected to the remarks and appealed for order.

Mr Marshall rejoined that he had a right to speak, as the subject had been forced upon .the chamber.' It was incompatible to him to sit tight and allow the chamber to become a hireling for the liquor party. He deprecated. the bogey that had been raised about better accommodation under license, and that '■ there would be less drinking carried on and that fewer bad debts would result.

Mr Marshall contended that ihe people who were prepared to acknowledge the courage of their,convictions and fight the liquor curse were the true patriots of. the country. (Applause from some members.) Warming up to his , subject, the speaker said that the evils associated with the liquor traffic could never be divorced from it„- and he failed to see how the chamjjcir could take chances' with the morals of the rising generation. He had hoped that tlie matter would have been shelved by tlie chamber .and the issue left to the individual members. . He was desirous that the chamber shoulkl continue to work shoulder to - shoulder on sound progressive lines, but it would not be tolerable to sit with members of an incorporate body if : the subject was to be pursued on .the 4ines of the resolution. /

The amendment was. seconded by Mr G. Buchanan, who ably supported the previous speaker. - He also said that tlie moral aspect came strongly into the question, and! die considered that if the 'chamber intended to countenance the resoJwkidn, then it was not fulfilling its prop'er functions.

Mr T. P. Vfiiglar was the. next speaker. He said lie admired Mr Marshall for having the courage of ’ his convictions ; but, ■ unfortunately, those convictions to Iris mind were not correct; and the views, expressed were unreasonable. ’ He was prepared to support national prohibition, but after living for over ' forty years' in this district he was convinced that restoration would be :in the interests of progress of Paeroa, “and I will advocate restoration so long as I have Jireath”, ne concluded. .

Mr J. P. Gamble followed, and in an speech—duringl the course of which he mentioned a number of graphic icicidlents of his young days in Ireland—he. said that the

resviuuon appealed to Him to be put ui piace ami beyond the scope of the ciiambei. He did not believe that either Paeroa or vvaiui had “gone back ’ under no-license. The (speaker quoted figures showing that the taaiugs of his own business had greatly increased, and he was satisfied that so long as the requiiements of the public were studied and catered for, and value given, the place would progress. more surely and solidly than it ever could do under restoration «idi its "attendant horrors and unhappiness.’ He thought that the promoters of the resolution had brought it .orwaid under a misapprehension, and lie appealed to. the sane-thinking men to disassociate themselves from the liquor traffic.

Speaking to the amendment, Mr H. J. Hare said that it was only supposition to state that the town would flourish under restoration. At the present time Paeroa, was certainly progressing, and travellers had remarked on the solidity of the btusinesses. The speaker thought it was regrettable that the matter should have been forced on the chamber, because strong diversity of opinion was bound to appear. Viewing .the subject in a broad light, he was sure that a. policy of good roads-, good value, and the protection and encouragement of the rising generation would pretsper the town and redound to its credit iar more than the reestablishment of licensed hotels. Such a resolution as had been moved that night only amounted, to propaganda work on behalf of the brewer’s interests, and he was of the opinion that the chamber could do more towards assisting progress by using its energies in other directions. In reply to Mr Leach Mr Buchanan said that the moral aspect of the question could not be separated from the commercial aspect, but the moral aspect of the liquor traffic was surely of greater importance than the commercial side.

Mr E. Edwards said that obviously the amendment had been moved so as to delay the matter, and he considered that it should not be delayed and that members should be privileged to give an expression of opinion. He contended that the town had gone back. He was not in accord with Mr Marshall that the no-license people were the true patriots; and instanced the men who had. gone to war, the best soldiers invariably being “h'ard cases” and men who took a drink. Prohibitionists would not make fair and equal comparisons. The speaker made a comparison between the growth of Te Aroha and Paeroa,- and said that Hikutaia was profiting at the expense of the Ohinemuri electorate. It was not the people of Hikutaia who supported that licensed house. The Auctioneering Company had moved the saleyards from Paeroa because business was so slack, but the Hikutaia sale was now one of the largest in the district. Paeroa was shunned by many people because the accommodation was not equal to that found in licensed areas. He was opposed to the amendment, and was strongly in favour of restoration and also national continuance.

Mr W. f: Johnstone, supporting ,the amendment, isaid that Paeroa h.ad progressed in years gone by not so much because it was then a licensed district but because the town was a natural centre for a prosperous and booming mining district. As mining declined so the progress of the town had eased off. That fact had no doubt affected the town far more than the loss of revenue from liquor licenses.

Mr Cassrels said it was regrettable that the mover of the amendment had so far lost his dignity as to cast personal imputations against him. The “prohibition party” had misinterpreted the resolution, and the .argument had drifted off on lines other than those, intended by the resolution.

On the amendment being put it was declared lost on the .showing of nands. Seven members voted for it. The resolution was then put and carried by a large majority.

Mr Cassrels then moved his second resolution, which read: “That active steps be taken by this- Chamber to assist in bringing about restoration in this electorate.”

In support, the mover said that as the majority of the meeting had expressed the opinion that restoration was in the interests of the town, it then became a matter for the chamber to take active steps to have the desired change brought about; The resolution was seconded by Mr W. McCullay.

Mr Johnstone intimated that in the event cf the resolution being carried he would be reluctantly compelled to tender his resignation.

Mr Leach pointed out that should the resolution be carried there would be a grave danger imposed on the executive, and it would be placed in an unfair position. He thought that as expressions of opinion had already been freely given it was unfair to throw the onus of malting a move on the executive.

Mr P. E. Brenan aiireeiL and moved as an amendment “That the members of this chamber advise the electors of Ohinemuri to support restoration irrespective of their views on the Dominion issue of continuance or prohibition.”

Mr Edwards seconded the amendment.

Mr Cassrels said that on thinking the matter ever he felt it might possibly put some members tin an untenable position and he was .prepared to withdraw .his resolution in favour of the amendment.

Mr Marshall shid he could see little difference between the resolution and

the amendment. He thought that the chamber should be content to let- the matter rest as it was, and moved to that effect. . ,

Mr Buchanan seconded, saying that it was purely propaganda. . The chamber had already definitely expressed an opinion and it would: be well to let the matter rest there. Messrs Leach and Hare agreed. Mr de Castro suggested that the amendment might also be withdrawn. • Mr Brenan said he was desirous of arriving at a solution of a difficult question, and he considered that his amendment should be acceptable to both parties. Mr Gamble said he would certainly disassociate himself from the chamber if it supported the amendment. In reply to Mr Cassrels Mr Brenan explained that the purport of his amendment was to secure restoration, which, in his opinion, was decidedly in the best interests of the district He asked the members who supported the previous resolution to in turn support his amendment. The amendment moved by Mr Marshall was then put and defeated by 14- to 12.,

Mr Buchanan thereupon moved a further amendment: “That seeing tnatthis meeting is so evenly divided, this chamber is of opinion that those members in favour of restoration should form a separate committee to advance the cause of restoration, and should in nowise entangle those members who are not in favour of restoration.” ‘ Seconded by Mr Johnstone. Mr R. S. Carden said he was in favour of the amendment, which he believed would tend to restore harmony among the members. Mr Cassrels contended that the amendment destroyed the resolution entirely, and he could not agree with it. . Mr Buchanan’s amendment was put and declared lost, the votes being 15 to 10. At this juncture Mr Brenan said that as the whole matter Was so contentious, with the consent of his sec- , ondcr he would withdraw his resolution out of consideration for the feelings of the no-license supporters. This was agreed, to by Mr Edwards, and the meeting closed with a hearty ; vote of thanks to the chair.