Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1894. The Lesson to be Learnt.

Manawatu Herald, 12 June 1894, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1894. The Lesson to be Learnt.

Ix onr last issue we mentioned that the annual maeting of the Oiaki Licensing Committee afforded some useful object lessons as to the further improvements needed in conducting the business for which they are elected. As we had foreshadowed, when previously writing upon the question, the inspection was mostly, a farce, and that the inspector of licensed premises referred to in the Licensing Act, is a myth. We very much doubt if the business of the Committee was legally conducted on Thursday, as though Inspector Pender only asserted that though some doubt might exist as to who should be inspector amongst the constables stationed in the district, yet there could not possibly ba any objection taken to him. The* Committee appeared to accept this statement and during the meeting conferred with him upon objections raised. How this can possibly be accepted with the distinct declaration of the Act to the contrary seems difficult to grasp. The Act permits, by clause 176, every chief officer of police, as herein defined, to be an inspector of licensed premises under this Act, and in clause 4, the interpretation of " chief officer of police " is said to mean and include every Superintendent, oi 1 Inspector of Police, &c, residing in or stationed in any licensing district. First, Inspector Pender does not reside in the Licensing District, but may be accepted as being stationed in the Wellington Police District, and for a portion of the Licensing District he could fairly claim to -appear, but a3 he neither resid* s in nor is stationed in the New Plymouth Police District, he lias no locus atandi as an Inspector of licensed premises for that portion of the Licensing District situated in that police district, but he claimed and acted all th same. It is evident that the amalgamation of two police districts in one Licensing district has created a difficulty which "no fellah can understand." as up to the morning of the meeting, Constable Gillespie, the senior constable, was ordered to ftofc as Inspector of Moused Premise

It would have been better if some thought had been given to the matter by the authorities earlier in the month, and the Committee might have discovered what instructions had been issued to the constables as to the character of the inspection they should make. It was unfortunately manifest to all present, and particularly to the members of the Committee, that the reports had, in most cases, been filled in simply as a matter of form and were of no practical use as a guidance to the Committee. This ! was very plainly shown in two cases. By some departmental orders two constables were directed to report on the Sandon Hotel. One report was simply filled in with the barest particulars as to accommodation, the other drew attention to deficiencies which were well known to some of the members. Tf the Committee 1 had had no personal knowledge and the first report had been the only one presented, they would have naturally granted the license on the faith of it, which would have been unsatisfactory to the travelling public. To show how reasonable the objections were, it has only to be mentioned that the licensee's solicitor admitted the statements and undertook to have the deficiencies made right, in fact, he asserted, it had been patent to the licensee who had intended to have moved in the matter anyway. Just so, and thus it becomes more surprising how that acting-inspector had not reported on the matter to the Committee. Inspector Pender was unable to solve the riddle. Another case, and we think a more glaring one, was that omission made by the actinginspector, the constable stationed at Otaki. The report of his on the Telegraph Hotel at Otaki confined itself to the mere mention that the house was old. The majority of the Committee had inspected it in morning, and found that a great portion of the house was not fit to live in, much of it being honeycombed with dry-rot, and the verandah and outside fire-escape rotten, in fact no member would trust himself to attempt the ascent by it. The Chairman asked this 11 inspector " if he had seen the fireescape, he admitted he had, he was asked if he had noticed the ravages of the dry-rot, this he admitted, and as an excuse for not stating these facts suggested he had reported the house was old, and volunteered the information that he knew the owners, Messrs Staples & Co. would not rebuild ! This, if anything, showed that the constable"s opinion of this house in his conversation with the firm, could not have been favourable to it, but he withheld the facts from the Committee because he knew the firm would net rebuild ! This becomes a serious question for the taxpayers to consider. The law pretends to place in the hands of those elected to Licensing Committees a power to deal with licensed houses, and to avoid the committees taking the trouble to make inspection for themselves, pretend to create an official in each district to give the committees and accurate and impartial report. The first time the committees meet the fact becomes patent that no trouble has been taken to appoint such an officer, and no trouble has been taken even to see that each constable knew, and would carry out iinpirtially the duties entrusted to him. In the case of the Otaki house the Inspector of Licensed Premises must have felt the rebuff given him by the decision of the committee, that the house must be put into a habitable state. The Committee also showed their feeling on the kind of inspection that had been made under the past muddled arrangements, by their Chairman stating it was the wish of the Committee that one officer should prepare the whole of the reports. There was no desire to mention any particular officer, but it was felt that to secure an uniform care in the management of licensed houses, that should all be viewed from one stand point. There is likely to be an amendment made to the " Alcoholic Liquors Sale Act " this coming session, and it behoves our Representatives to secure to the Committees proper inspection and supervision of licensed premises. We think this would be best gained by permitting the appointment of Inspectors to be in the hands of the Committees, as then j directions could be issued as to the manner the duties should be carried out. The Inspector needs to be an independent man free from any influencing by departments or local bodies, he should be the eyes of the committee, and of them alone. There is a dawn of a better regulation of the liquor traffic, and elected members of Committees will not be satisfied in the future with the treatment that has just been accorded them, and unless they can thoroughly rely on the independence of the Inspector of Licensed Premises they will have to take other measures to .secure the fullest information being at their command, which will mean bath labour and time to everyone concerned.