The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays.) SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1879.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 437, 21 June 1879, Page 2

The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays.) SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1879.

The proposed ** Licensing Laws Amendment Act, 1879,” makes some interesting provisions. The most novel one is that on “ some convenient day in the month of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and thereafter at the same time in every third year,” the ratepayers in each licensing district shall determine by ballot whether “ the number of publicans licenses dn the - district may be increased.” If the majority say no, then the matter is set at rest for three years, and no Bench could during that . time grant a license in the district. If, however, the majority say yes, the Bench is not bound to grant any application, but is left somewhat in its present position. It will Still entertain petitions and memorials, and exercise its own judgment. But—“ if It shall appear to tlic Oourt tliat a majority of at least two-thirds of the residents” (i.e.' all males and females of twenty-one years and upwards) “or ratepayers i n the neighbourhood ot the house in. respect of which a license is sought or to which it relates, object to the granting of the application, such Licensing Court shall refuse to grant such application. The Licensing Court shall, in each case, at their discretion, determine what is to be deemed ‘ The neighbourhood ’ for the purpose of such Act, and shall take such measures by receiving evedince or otherwise as shall be necessa'ry to determine the number of residents and ratepayers therein.”

The wisdom of these provisions is very well pointed out by the Press ; —“ It thus appeared that the ratepayers will be called on once in three years to decide deliberately and under the protection of the ballot, whether more public houses are or are not required in the neighbourhood. This is as it should be. The question of whether such houses are wanted by the ratepayers, is left to the ratepayers themselves, and the Licensing Court has' the responsibility of deciding as to whether any particular application comes from a suitable person for a commodious house in a desirable locality. The question too will be settled for a reasonable time, and speculators will not be tempted to incur expenses, and put themselves and the Licensing Court to great trouble and inconvenience by frequent efforts to obtain a license. Another great advantage will be that every existing license will become more valuable where the number cannot be indifinately increased, and the proprietor will feel that he has more at stake, and therefore a stronger motive for refraining from. any practice that would' 63 likely to endanger it. This we think a very important feature in the interest of temperance and morality,. We regret, however, to see. the measu e marreotd some extent by - the provisions of the 16th clause, which give power to two-thirds of the residents to remove an existing license without compensation. We are quite willing that they should, have this power to remove temptation from themselves and their’ neighbors, but let them have it without the power to inflict injustice to any one who has invested his money in any undertaking in which the law practically protects him 1 daring good behaviour.-”: •. ■ • • * Among the minpr provisions of the bill .i? one for the .dispensing with the timo honoured lahip in places otherwise sufficiently lighted at the expense of the ratepayers, of whom the publican is" one. Another clause provides for a uniform charge of £4O for licenses throughout the Colony. This appears to us unreasonable. Why should the roadside hotel which is a great convenience, but has only a small trade, pay the same license as a huge palace hotel in a city 1