New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5128, 30 August 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1877.

The licensed victuallers at their meeting held in the Polytechnic Hall yesterday did not in some respects set about attaining their objects in the best way. It would have beenbetter, for instance,; if some of them who spoke had not copied the intemperate style of the total abstainers and local optionists. These latter gentlemen have done much to harm their cause by the vehemence and vituperation with which they have assailed all that,is opposed to them. It would have been well if the licensed victuallers yesterday had in every respect exhibited a different demeanor to that of their enemies. However, there is no doubt that when persons’ material interests are at stake they are apt to get excited, and this perhaps may plead in excuse for the publicans. We have already stated our own views on the Local Option Bill and on the licensing question; but even at the risk of reiterating them, we may say that to our ideas the true view of the matter is this : that licensing laws should be so framed as to make it the direct interest of the hotelkeeper to conduct his house in the best and most respectable manner. If legislators would bear this simple fact in mind, and would endeavor to frame, their laws accordingly, we believe that a solution of the question now agitating the public mind might be much more quickly arrived at. In one matter in connection with yesterday’s meeting a decided mistake was committed. The city members should not have been asked to attend. For this mistake however Mr. Trayees, and not the licensed victuallers, was to blame. It will be remembered that when Mr. Travers was contesting the last election, in his written address he said : “In all matters in which the interests of the city are concerned I" should be willing to meet you during the sessions, in order to hear your views in public meeting ; but I should decline to occupy the position of ,a mere delegate.” This was all very right and proper, and there was a fine independent ring about the refusal “to occupy the position of a mere delegate.” But in his speech at St. George’s Hall Mr. Travers said; “ I can only say that if you elect me, and any important questions should arise in regard to which I think the opinion of the electors should be taken, I shall invite you to meet me and discuss them.” Under these circumstances, Mr. Travers could scarcely complain because the licensed victuallers saw fit to invite him to discuss the Local Option Bill. Mr. Hunter, the senior member for the city, occupied a very different position to that of Mr. Travers. Whilst differing from Mr. Hunter in his views on the licensing question, we can readily accord to that gentleman the merit of consistency. He has never even hinted, that before voting upon any question he would consider it necessary to get the cue from his constituents, and he has never hesitated to express his views as to local option. We do not agree with those views, but no one can find fault with the manner in which they are expressed, or the consistency with which they have been maintained.