THE LIQUOR BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9789, 12 October 1917, Page 4

THE LIQUOR BILL

Some drastic provisions added to this measure by the Legislative Council require careful study. T ' ies ® casly and unjustly curtail ' the liberty of the citizen. They are, moreover, quite foreign to the main purpose ot the bill, and are in no way necessary to that main purpose, which to stop the ordinary liquor traffic during certain hours. Section 2 enacts that no one can bo on licensed premises within the prohibited hours, except the licensee and his family and his employees, his lodgers, and the guests and visitors of his lodgers and persons having business with them; persons having business with the. licensee and his family; persons taking breakfast or dinner within the prohibited hours; and bona fide travellers. Of all these the only ones who may buy or consume liquor during these hours are the licensee, his family, and lodgers, and the licensee is not permitted to have any guests during the prohibited hours. Thus travellers, and other persons having meals in a hotel—a very common and often necessary practice—cannot be supplied with liquor at their meals, nor can they consume liquor. That is to say, they cannot either have a locker or ■ bring their liquor with them to the diningtable. In unlicensed premises where meals ■or refreshments are ordinarily sold or disposed of to tho public, no one except the occupier, his family, and servants may consume liquor during the prohibited hours. lu clubs, on the contrary, liquor may not bo supplied to anyone during the . prohibited hours, but liquor may be consumed during those hours, if a member chooses to provide himself with it within the hours when it may be sold to him. This differential treatment" is unjust. Why should the , man" who dines in his club be allowed to take liquor with his meal, while the man who dines in a hotel or a restaurant is fined for breaking the law? If a man chooses to take a bottle of stout with him to' an oyster saloon, he is not doing harm to the public any more than, a man who takes .a hottle of a locker in a club when he is dining. Why treat him differently? In-the ease of the lodger in a licensed -house the principle is conceded that a man may nave liquor with his meal, and at all hours; but the traveller does not get the benefit; neither does the casual diner. Now, neither the traveller nor the casual diner go to the hotel for drink. They go there for food, and their right to do so is recognised. Why should they be deprived of the drink they are accustomed to with their meal? Moreover, what danger is there of exceeding and thereby jeopardising the main purpose of the measure? The anti-shouting law is in force, and, in addition, the cost of tho dinner is some deterrent? As to tho diner on the unlicensed premises, the clause says he shall not consume liquor, but he can, if he wants to drink, go into tho street and have his drink, and come back. Why should he be subjected to such petty tyranny? Then as to licensees, they are in their own houses. All men are allowed to have friends and entertain them in their own houses. Why are the licensees to he deprived of the privilege? The deprivation is moan, and therefore scandalous. The Council has utterly failed in its duty to the Constitution by passing tho measure. We trust that the petty 'meanness to, which ,it has descended will not be permitted to add to its tyranny.