PUBLIC OPINION.

Patea Mail, 19 May 1882, Page 3

PUBLIC OPINION.

Contributions, Letters, Inquiries and Answers thereto, are invited on Farming. Commerce, Politics, and matters of interest to the Patea district. Names of writers need not be Printed.

MORE PUBLIC HOUSES.

The licensing of a new public-house at the corner of the road to the wharves, mentioned in the letter from “Moderation, ” is treated from the Good Templar’s standpoint. Now I fancy the majority of people in this borough wi}! be in favor of free-trade in liquors. I mean that they will not ; wish to stop anybody from opening a public-house. It is a common mistake, to suppose that drinking is increased by the increase of public-houses. If persons choose to build such places, and pay a license of £4O a year to the borough, I for one would say, why should they not do it ? I can quite believe that there is not enough population near the bridge to require another public-house, but I do say that if Mr Tennent or anybody else chooses to build one and try his luck inthe liquor trade, he has as much right to a license for his house as any other hotel in town. “Moderation” seems to think that the owner has some influence with the new Licensing Committee, who would he inclined to favor, him. Well, I have my own'opinion bn that, arid as I see; lawyers in Court are allowed to bet a new hat, I dare bet a tile that the Committee will not refuse this, license. Free Trader.

[Note. —We disclaim all responsibility for bets made in this manner, whether for bats, bonnets, or gloves.—Ed. Mail ]

I am glad to see that somebody takes an interest; ;in the licensing of hew hotels in Patea. Can you infortn the public what constitutes the claim to a new license ? Is it an increase of population requiring more hotel accommodation ? Or will the Licensing Committee only consider the wants of the locality where the new hotel is built? I happen to know that the other hotels near the bridge have not been paying their working expenses for some time. This is not a lively Ipok-out for a new hotel, when the present hotels in that quarter are too much for the trade there doing. In these hard times, I cannot envj' the hotel-keepers down there. I subscribe mj’self Pno Bono Puulico.

I would like to bear what the publicans have to say respecting the new license which Mr George Beamish is applying for. Everybody knows that it was the publicans who nominated the Licensing Committee in Patea. Did the publicans.expect their Committee would license a new house erected between two hotels at the lower end of the town, where the population is top small to support the present hotels ? I am glad to saj 7 I did not vote for in-, creasing the licenses, because I do not ■think Committees elected by the public will be as independent- as the Licensing Justices were under the old system.. Take the :present case. : .The, new hotel is built by a banker, and most of us know ■that bankers have a peculiar influence when they want anything done. Some members of tlae Oornmittee are not . as free to. act in this case as they ought to be ? I have always respected Mr Tcnnent, and I fancy ho would rather not be mixed up in this application. : We. have to take things as they are, and I do, not like the turn which this is taking. My opinion is that those who have licenses in ' that part of the town are entitled to be protected against competition, when it is not required for public convenience. If the hew Committee have not independence enough to refuse a license when it is not wanted for public convenience, then the Committee will be injuring the very per-, sons who elected it—l mean the publicans. • Householder.