Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, SEPT. 6, 1902. Brewers and Hotelkeepers.

Manawatu Herald, 6 September 1902, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, SEPT. 6, 1902. Brewers and Hotelkeepers.

Vabiotjs devices have been resorted to by brewers to keep the retail trade under their command. An attempt was made, by parliament, a year or two ago, to do away with what are termed “ tied ” houses, that i» where

bound only to deal with to whom the licensed There is always ■Ro be a way to drive a coach and Bbrses through an Act of Parliament yad a new way to accomplish the ’adding of a tenant was devised, so h’everly, that in a case, brought before the Supremo Court for decision, the nidge gave judgement for the brewer Is though the Court, if it found .here was a contract compelling the itenant to buy hb beer from a particular person, the Court could annul it, yet |the particular form of lease did not come under the terms used in the statute. This loophole is where a tenant takes a house for, say, so much a week, reduceable to one half that sura, or even more, as long as the tenant takes his beer from the landlord. The judge, in hearing the case, said '■ lam therefore compelled, though I may think tho spirit of the statute has been ingeniously evaded, to hold that the letter has not been violated.”

To remedy .this the Hon. Mr Rigg has brought in a Bill entitled “ 'the Tied Houses Bill,” which has passed its second reading in the Legislative Council and is now before a com-, m’-Vy-e. During the discussion, that mam/d its sesond reading, very strong statements wore., aaade as to spoliation and other"extreme terms, but the Hon. Mr'Bigg appears to have successfully combatted the opposition. The main portion of the Bill is to prohibit brewers being the owners of licensed premises at a fixed date. According to some members the brewers were much to be pitied as they had laid out much capital in the purchase of licensed premises, and by having tied houses they bad done the State good service. The public must wish well to the efforts made by tho Hon. Mr Rigg for an amount of comfort is concerned in their case. It is nonsense to argue that because tho brewer owns the house everything in connection with it must therefore be good. The purpose of the brewer chiefly, is to get a good sale for his product, anti the most beer sold by any tenant, would be, to his mind the best he could gat. Many people are apt to forget that the liquor trade is upon wholly a different basis to any ether trade, for it is a monopoly, and except through a licensing committee the public have very little to say. Suppose, in a small township a brewer bought all the houses, the inhabitants would have to take his beer or none. In the case of a grocer or draper trying to force certain articles upon you the remedy would lie in sitting up an opposition; in licensed premises the law debars this from being done. Every independent hotel keeper will keep the liquor which he finds his customers most appreciate, but a “tied ” man has to do his best with what is sent him. The public are bound to be interested in the dealings between landlord and tenant in the liquor trade so that it may be interesting to remark that a committee set up by the English Parliament upon this phase of tenure reported, “ There ia no doubt that some brewers charge more for liquor f r tied tenants than to free, and thus try to get some of the profits on retail sale as well as wholesale profits which properly belong to them. . . . The partly tied tenants are likely to be better off than the wholly tied, as they have less burdens to bear.” The Bill does not intend to hurt the brewers, as there is no confiscation of property, nothing but an order to disposess themselves of property, which has been shown is not to the public advantage their holding. We have not to fight our way amongst them, as yet, though wo have ever been an advocate of the abolition of “ tied ” houses. We cannot see how the brewers can complain if this Bill is made law, as what it aims to accomplish, has been, by Act of Parliament ordered a few years ago, and ia only not in existence owing to the manner the law has, according to a Judge of the Supreme Court been “ ingeniously evaded.”