Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, February 9, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1034, 9 February 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, February 9, 1882.

The nomiration of candidates for the Licensing Committee for the Borough of Gisborne, under the Licensing Act of 1881, took place yesterday. A number of gentlemen were nominated. The conflicting interests of the teetotalers and noil-teetotalers of the district, which have apparently io long lain dormant in Giaborne, are at length aroused. In parte of the Colony a bitter feud exists between those two sections of the population. We hope that in the election shortly to take place the ratepayers will be actuated by liberal views. The powers granted to the Licensing Committee under the new law are scarcely yet realised. Large and arbitrary powers are granted to the committees. Compliance with the law’ does not suffice. The committee may ignore the opinion of the ratepayers, and refuse to grant a license even ■where the ratepayers have by a poll duly taken declared in favor of a new house. The necssary accommodation in the building, and the personal fitness of the applicant for a license, does not make it imperative on the part of the Licensing Committee to issue a license unless, in their opinion there is a necessity for the publichouse or other establishment for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The ratepayers of Gisborne should clearly understand that these huge powers are placed in the hands of the majority of a committee of five persons. In some respects, therefore, says the Auckland Star, “The New Licensing Act gives less assurance to the publican of the safety of his license than he would ♦•njoy under a simple form of Local Option when a majority of the resident rateyayerg would decide. A woll-

conducted house and a good landlord would rarely fail to obtain a majority of the votes of the district in favor of a renewal, while, as the law now stand*, the goodwill of the district must be supplemented by a favorable majority of the Licensing Bench. It is thus possible for a Licensing Committee, by straining the Act, to push prohibitionism beyond the level of public opinion—and in fact coerce a majority. Of course the reaction would quickly bring about a remedy, but iu the meantime much injury might be done and much possible good lost. Coming straight to the point of the whole matter, it is not upon the teetotal section of the community that the working of the new law should devolve. The Act was never intended to give expression to the special views of that section any more than it was meant to put licensing under the control of the liquor trade, as may happen in some districts. The ratepayers, as a body, are the people directly concerned. What we really hope for from the Act is an honestly administered liquor law under which abuses will be fearlessly punished, while the respectable publican finds security and protection.” Therefore, what is wanted to give expression to the Act is not a committee of teetotallers who are fearful of violating their consciences and vows, but the very best men we can get in the community—men of sterling, upright character, incapable of being got at, and who will be prepared to administer the law fairly as they find it, doing justice equally to the trade and the public. The election of the Licensing Committee will take place on the 15th February next. Twelve candidates, it will be seen, are nominated. It should not be the object of the ratepayers to elect men who will strain isolated clauses of the Act, but rather men of independent character, who will honestly and intelligent]} fulfil what is to all intents aud purposes a judicial office.