THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 51, 13 January 1872, Page 12

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

The movement in favor of the Permissive Bill is gaining strength daily, not merely in England, but in the Australian colonies. On the Bth of last month the second reading of this bill was carried, in the New South Wales Parliament, by a majority of 26 to 10. The whole of the members of the Ministry appear to have voted in favor of it. We gather that there had been seventy petitions presented in favor of the measure, containing 26.600 signatures, being tho largest number of signatures that had ever been presented in that colony praying for any legislative enactment. This is a proof that the current of public opinion is setting in strongly against the liquor traffic, and iu favor of more stringent restrictions.being imposed upon it than exist at present. If that opinion was directed against the common use of intoxicating liquors, and against those usages and customs upon which the drinking habits of the people are to a great extent based, or by which they are stimulated and fostered, we should have greater faith in the permanent success of the movement. Publichouses are only one of the means by which the , use of intoxicating drink is promoted, and drunkenness engendered ; and it is to be apprehended that those who desire ; to make the liquor traffic more instead ; of less respectable, by lessening the j number and increasing the respectability , of publichouses, will give permanence to a system which they desire to abolish. By imposing restrictions on the issue of publican's licenses, instead of imposing penalities upon them for misconduct, you will give strength to an odious I monopoly, and probably render its abolition more hopeless than before. It is when the traffic ceases to be held respectable, and not when it is made more so, that it will fall into disrepute. This may appear a mere truisim, but it is nevertheless ovrelooked by a majority of those who sign petitions in favor of Permissive Bills. That which will render the traffic most disreputable will assist most effectually in its abolition. If publicans were made responsible for the misconduct of their victims, such a law would do more to make drink-selling unfashionable, and drunkenness less common, than any restrictions imposed on the issue of licenses would be likely to effect. We frequently willingly submit to a small incovenience in order to escape a greater. Wise laws, it has been beautifully said, are not chains, but chain mail—strength and defence, though somewhat of an encumberance. A law of the kind here indicated would prove such a defence, and probably such an incumberance, to both buyer and seller, but it might not fur that reason prove less beneficial or indispensable. In the Licensing Bill, introduced last sessi6n, Mr Fox introduced clauses from an act which had been passed by the State Legislature of Ohio giving a legal remedy to those who are injured by the drinking habits of others. But probably Mr Fox was not then aware that Congress itself had passed a measure of a similar purport and more comprehensive character, which was as follows :- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled : That in the district of Columbia, and in all the territories of the United States, every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband, employer, or other person, who shall be injured in person, property, means of support, or otherwise by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, directly or indirectly, shall have a right of action in his or her own name, against, any person or persons who shall by Belling or giving any intoxicating liquor or otherwise have caused, or contributed to such intoxication, or shall have caused, in whole or part, the intoxication of such person or persons. And in any such action the plaintiff shall have a right to recover past, prospective, and exemplary damages. And the owner of, lessee, or person or persons renting or leasing any building or premises having knowledge that intoxicating liquors are to be sold therein, shall be libel, severally or jointly with the persons so selling or givingintoxicating liquors as aforesaid. And in every action by any wife or husband, general reputation of the relation of husband and wife shall be sufficient evidence of such rolation, and the amount recovered by every wife shall be her sole and separate property. Any sale or gift of intoxicating liquors by tho ! lessee of any premises resulting in damage shall work a forfeiture of his lease. Would not a bill of this kind, if passed by our Colonial Legislature, and rigidly carried into effect, do more to secure the objects desired by the advo-

cates of the Permissive Bill, than any amendment in the licensing laws, or restrictions on the issue of licenses, would be likely to effect ? The " New York Tribune," in commenting on this statute, asks, " Why should not those who fatten upon the profits of the liquor traffic be compelled to bear the responsibilities of their own chosen work ?" The aim of those who advocate the passing of Permissive Bill,s it appears to us, is to make the liquor traffic less extensive and at the same time more respectable ; the object of the above measure is to make the trafficers responsible for the evils directly resulting from their own deliberate acts ; and, consequently, to' render the traffic itself less attractive, more hazardous, and more disreputable. Will it not, for this reason, be likely to prove, the more effective ?