Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1879. THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 10, 26 September 1879, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1879. THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

j _* . | Although Sir William Fox, the i New Zealand Apostle of Teetotalisni, I will not hold a seat in Parliament | during the ensuing session, the cause he has so near at heart will not be unrepresented in the House, Mr Speight, who sits for Auckland City East, being one of the most prominent Good Templars in the North Island, whilst Mr Dick, who headed the poll at Dunedin, is an equally enthusiastic total obstainer. The teetotal party will thus have two firm and unflinching advocates in the House. We therefore fully expect that the Permissive Bill will come up for discussion during the session, ! and will doubtless form the rallying | point for another intemperate debate on the chink question. The object of the Bill is ostensibly to give the people a voice in the licensing of hotels. That th's is sound in principle, few will deny. The masses are vitally interested in the question. It is admitted the drink evil is a large one, and the greater the number of public houses the stronger is the temptation thrown in the way of the weakmiuded. Also, as the hotels are licensed for the public accommodation, it is claimed the public have a right to express an opinion whether or not they require them. But it is precisely at this point, that the question widens out, and whilst fully agreeing with the abstract view, the reduction of it to the concrete involves several very difficult questions. To whom shall be given the right of saying, " We need no publichouses ?" Shall it be the male adults, or the whole adult population ? Shall the country districts be placed upon the same footing as the towns ? or shall the majority required be graduated, according to the population ? These are difficult questions to answer. In the application of the permissive principle to country districts, will lie the greatest difficulty. The towns are differently situated. In them the hotels in certain quarters derive their trade almost exclusively from the inhabitants immediately surrounding them. These people may suffer through the deterioration in Value of their property and the demoralisation of their children, should a noisy drink-shop be erected in their midst. Indeed, any community suffers from the existence of mere drink-shops, which are compelled to push a trade. ' Such places lower the moral tone of a community, and are fruitful causes of poverty, immorality, and crime. This being the case, any number of householders in a town are justified in claiming the right to say, "We area set led community ; there are no travellers passing through our district who need accommodation ; this house will be a mere drinkingplace, and it can only be made to pay by driving a trade, which will lead to evil ; therefore we give our ' vote against it, as wp dp not need such a place." But in the country things are different, for the publican becomes literally an accommodation house-' keeper. The persons who use the country hotels are mostly travellers. Eesidents contribute only a very small portion of the trarie. The accommodation provided for " man and beast" is the leading feature, aud the bar trade with residents is a secondary item. Under these circumstances, we kold it would be a very great injustice to allow a majority of the residents to decide whether such places should or should not exist. We may take Foxton as an example. In this town there are three hotels, all wellconducted. Now, we can quite conceive the possibility of some eloquent advocate of teetotalism (e.g., Sir William Fox) making a raid upon the township, and convincing a great number of unthinking persons of the monstrous evils of intemperance, thus rousing a spirit of opposition to all hotels, which might culminate in a permissive petition. The probabilities are that two-thirds of the men and women signing the petition in

such a case, would be persons wlio never enter a hotel ; to whom drink is no temptation ; who have comfortable homes and the associations of friendship to wile away their leisure hours ; who Buffer no pecuniary loss f.'om deterioration of property through hotel buildings ; and who are, in fact, uninterested in every way, except on the broad, humanitarian grounds of putting temptation out of " their brother's " way. To allow such a section of the community to rule in the matter, and close all licensed houses, would be a positive wrong. The people who chiefly support and use the Foxton hotels — and we merely use the nearest township for the purposes of illustration— are not residents, but travellers and visitors from the country, who arej as a matter of fact, entitled to a voice in the question, " Do we, or do we not, need hotels ?" It will be seen, therefore, that whilst the permissive principle could with comparative ease be introduced in the towns, it would be most difficult to work it in the country. Then there is the compensation question. Should a publican deprived of his license by the operation of the permissive principle be compensated for his loss ? Of late years the conflict has raged around this particular point. The Good Templars, on the one hand, having declared "war to the knife," will give no quarter. The natnral result is that a vast combination is at once created in self defence. It is impossible to shut our eyes to the wide extent and wealth of the " vested interests " connected with the liquor trade. The barloy-giowers, the wine and spirit merchants, the brewers, and the publicans form a strong power in the State, and when, like the silversmiths of Ephesus, they see their craft is in danger, they naturally unite then.' forces for mutual defence. In this they are undoubtedly backed up by a large majority of the colonists, who regard the extreme views of the Good Templars as fanatical attempts to rob them of part of their " creature comforts." Now, if the Good Templars would recognise that reforms must grow, and would be willing to accept a medium course, we believe they would gain a very strong body of allies in. the moderate drinkers, and would undoubtedly gain a most important step towards the consummation of their hopes. It is well known that the refusal of Sir "Wm. Fox to accept a compensation clause has prevented Parliament rendering operative the Permissive Bill. We believe it will remain so for very many years. Our own opinion is, after careful consideration, that the owners of houses licensed before the Permissive Bill comes actually into operation, and closed under its provisions, are entitled to compensation. We base that opinion upon the following grounds : At present, when a man takes out a license, it is clearly understood that so long as he conducts his house properly, and so long as that house is suitable for the trade, the license will be continued. This understanding has become an unwritten law, so general is the custom ; in fact, a licensee is not required to attend the Court, unless an objection is lodged to the renewal of his license. The capital invested in the house,furniture, &c, can therefore be turned into cash as in the case of of any other property. But local option introduces another element into the question, and if the disciples of Sir Win. Fox preponderated in a township,the best-conducted hotel in the Colony might be closed, and the proprietor beggared. We repeat that local option, in such a case as that, would be entirely a new element, and it is recognised that where a trade which has grown up under the eyes of the State, and been licensed and proteetd by the State, is abolished by law, compensation should be granted. We would not give one farthing compensation to a man who obtained a license after the Local Option Act came fully into operation. Ho knows the risk he runs, ami should include that risk in his calculations. But we hold that men who* have invested large sums of money to supply a public want and afford accommodation and refreshment, who went into the trade on the Understanding that their license would be continued so long as their conduct and accommodation were suitable, and who are deprived of that license by a power not in existence when they opened their houses, are entitled to compensation of some kind. What the basis of the compensation should be, is a difficult puestion. It might be so much pet cent upon profits and capital invested for say two years. But whatever basis was taken, care should be exercised that no inducement would be held out to dishonest publicans to get their houses closed in order to obtain the compensation. It should be compensation for loss sustained, and nothing more. That some such moderate view as that we have indicated, would, if accepted by the Good Templars, largely assist the settlement of the difficulties which prevent the passing in- a workable form of the Permissive Bill, we verily believe. We think the principle of the Bill might with advantage be applied to all towns containing population over a certain number. Its application to country districts we regard as almost impossible, though it might be desirable to

iave an elective Licensing Jiench. Dhe compensation difficulty might be )vercome by a compromise oi' the jliavacter we have mentioned. We sympathise deeply with every effort nado to raise the moral tone of the joimtry, and remove the obstacles to lappiness and prosperity. But a ournalist cannot become a violent partisan. It is his duty to advocate nstice to all, and we believe the jroad views we have' expressed iri ;his article will prevail in legislation ipon the drink question.