The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.) THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 163, 23 April 1874, Page 2

The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.)

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1874.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The first Sitting of the Licensing Commissioners in Gisborne under the “Licensing Act, 1873” passed over without any opposition by the Good Templar, or Permissive element, which hastakeuso active aforrn in some other towns and provinces. We can only, therefore, reasonably conclude that t tere is no objection on the part of the settiers to the number of hotels already licensed, nor, indeed, to the licensing of fresh ones ; and, without in any way detracting from the conserva'tivism which places certain restrictive powers in the hands of those most likely to be benefited, or otherwise, by what is familiarly known as the “ liquor traffic,” we confess our gladness that there has been no opposing demonstration. There is. speaking generally, too much cant and veritable humbug mixed with the arguments that are brought forward to support a movement hostile to the publicans. Double distilled fire, and eternal, liquid, damnation aretheonly stock-in-trade of an hotel-keeper recorded in the gospel according to the mistaken zealots, whose moral intemperance falls little short of the physical drunkenness they delude themselves into the belief of being able to control or cure by an arbitrary curtailment of one’s liberty. AVe steadfastly adhere to a belief in the “Permissive” pov.er— if this is the proper application of the word—that persons have a right to a voice in the continuance or yen ova! < f a nuisance, and to use it if they i’ink proper; and we ssv that trey* is as much reasonableness in seeking to dielodge a nuisance caused by a badly-conducted public house, as that wLieb might come from the presence of a putrefying carcass or an open cesspool; we take a purely sanitary view of the matter, at.d dislike intensely the hypocritical suams employed to give things names tlat do not belong to them, but there

,ve stop; and we repeat our thuiikfa'ness that the community has not yet arrived at that unhappy condition of mental aberration, which seeks to work out a doubtful end with still more doubtful means.

But, although there has b:en no opposition from without — from amongst the people themselves—there has been some from within. The Commissioners have refused to grant a certificate for licensing another hotel in Gisborne! Because why? Because two hotel-keepers—living in the town, and whose trade might be infinitessimally affected by another house— alii rm fhatthefr presentac.eommodatiou is quite sufficient for more trade than they have already ! That, possibly, may not have been the sole consideration of the whole court for refusing the certificate, but the Chairman asked the question which brought forth the very natural reply,and which, we have no doubt, influenced the majority of the Commissioners. There is great danger in the possession of too much power; and the Commissioners who rejected Clarke’s application afforded ample testimony of its being injudiciously applied in that instance. Power vested in the few, insomuch that theminority can overrule the majority, is likely to take a despotic form in the exercise of it. Il may not be put in force with any arbitrary intention ; but it is the effect and not the intention, which stamps its character. We have always looked on clause 22 of the “Licensing Act, “ 1873,” which gives the power to two or three Commissioners to overrule the opinions of the multitude, as one conveying the most direct evidence of the possibility of committing a great wrong with the best intention ; but that we may not be misunderstood, we quote the clause:

The Licensing Court shall exercise its discretion in granting or refusing any certificate for any description of license, and shall not be obliged to grant the same merely because the requirements of the law as to accommodation or personal fitness of the applicant are fulfilled, unless in its opinion there is a necessity for the public-house or other establiAimenl for the sale of spirituous liquors for which application is made.

Nothing can be more intolerant of, and opposed to, the liberalism of the age than such a power. The Commissioners who sat on Tuesday cannot be said to have acted in a way not justified by their own judgment; but we cannot but think that, jumping so hastily under the protection of that clause, they have injudiciously taken upon themselves the responsibility of placing an embargo on commerce, and of striking a severe blow at the principles of free trade. This may not have been their intention, but, we repeat, that such is the effect ; hence the inadvisability of taking the first chance of being severe, simply because the law provides the means. It was never intended to be put in force unless under exceptional circumstances, such as do not exist in the present instance. There would have been more satisfaction had the Court stated on the record a more detailed reason for withholding Clark’s certificate, than that embodied in the replies to which we have referred. The public would like to know why Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bradley were alone consulted on the matter. Why not Mr. Blair and Mr. Caulton ? Their hotels are nearer to the proposed “ Royal,” and would be more affected by the competition of another licensed bouse, and have also, we dare say, “ accommo- “ dation for more trade than they are “ doing,” Their is a savor of “ protection ” about all this which clashes very markedly with the opinions put forth by the Licensing Bench last year, when, in opposition to a numerously-signed memorial against the licensing of Mr. Higgins’s Hotel at Makaraka, the same gentlemen who now compose the Court, grounded their reasons for granting the certificate on the very principles which they now abandon. The Chairman said that although the memorial was respectably and influentially supported, the Bench decided to grant the license on the principles of Free Trade, and did so. It is true that the Bench under the old Act had not the same power as the Court has under the new Act, but, according to the opinions then held, it would not have been exercised in any case. The circumstances of the two cases are not at all analogous, although we do not intend to argue against the propriety of what the Bench then did, but we do say that an injustice has been done in the withholding of Clarke’s certificate on the very flimsy ground already alluded to, even allowing, as the Chairman said, that the majority of the Court were of " opinion that another hotel was not “ wanted in the town.” We do not say that another hotel is wanted in the town, but, considering that Clarke’s house is 27 chains distant from the nearest licensed hotel, and in a thickly populated and rapidly increasing neighborhood, it is an arbitrary abuse of small power to deny to the people what they have

.iot ob’ected to.

Unlike Mr. Higgins’ application no memorial has been presented against Mr. Clarke’s, therefore we may assume there is no objection to it by the. residents in that locality ; but there is much more objection to four gentlemen, recently robed with a little brief authority, undertaking to say that the residents in the upper portion of the town are all Good Templars,or, if not, that they must walk half-a-mile, at least, for their beer.