Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1081, 1 June 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1882.

The case of Mr T. J. Dickson, as brought before the Resident Magistrate in Gisborne on Saturday last, has created some stir among citizens, and no small amount of wonder that so respectable a man should have been subjected to so much annoyance. We quite endorse the opinion of the many that the whole root and foundation of the vexatious treatment to which Mr Dickson has been exposed lays in that most ill-designed and hypocritical apology to the Temperance Party, “ The Licensing Act, 1881.” We cannot, remembering as we do the distinct reproof conveyed by the R.M. to Sergeant Bullen a very short time ago for not proceeding against publicans in cases where men were charged with drunkenness, believe that Sergeant Bullen was actuated in this instance by anything beyond a desire to carry out the provisions of this mo it iniquitous Aet. But the fact of his being solely desirous of so doing does not make the matter one iota the less irksome or disagreeable for Mr Dickson. Surely the reputation of a wellknown and respected citizen should be enough to guarantee him against such mean and petty accusations. But the Act says No! and Sergeant Bullen only supports the Act. The Act says if two convictions can be proved against any licensee in six months his license shall be in danger, and so because perhaps some lout goes into Mr Dickson’s house loaded up with latent whisky, and has one more glass there, and gets drunk, Mr Dickson is to stand in danger of losing his license. Clever Act! Very clever Act! I But you’re a fraud all the same, Act! You take money for licenses, and you want to badger the lives out of the men you sell them to Then you can shut them up, and exhibit your horror of intemperance. Clever Act! Excellent Actl ! The whole tenor of the Licensing Act as it stands is to drive respectable men out of the hotel-keepiug business, and commit the public to the tender mercies of vendors of poisonous mixtures. There can be no doubt that in the case in point Sergeant Bullen was literally within his rights. He is an Inspector under the Licensing Act, and by Section 178 of that Act is required to enforce and superintend the carrying out of its provisions. He saw a man, Hoyt, whom he believed to be drunk, on Mr Dickson’s premises, and in accordance with the provisions of this most enlightened Act—Sections 143 and 184 —he entered Mr Dickson’s house and arrested Hoyt, afterwards serving Mr Dickson with a summons under Section 146 of the same brilliant Act, for permitting drunkenness to take place on his premises; and had Mr Dickson not beeu provided with plenty of reliable witnesses, who proved most clearly that the man Hoyt had not been supplied with intoxicatiug liquors on the premises, and had in fact been positively refused by Mr Dickson personally, a conviction must have ensued, and this most unrighteous Act would have obtained what it so eagerly sought, an endorsement of conviction on the license of a man who is known throughout the place as a law-abiding, honest, conscientious man, and a thoroughly good citizen—one whose purse or person have never been deaf or closed to public call or private aharity. Two such convictions within six months would jeopardise the license, and render Mr Dickson’s monetary interest in his business comparatively valueless. Is not this a most monstrous state of things? We cannot blame the police. But we can and do blame the “ Licensing Act, 1881.” We believe Sergeant Bullen to be thoroughly superior to the mean and petty spiteful dodge of trying to injure a man because he does not like him, or for any other reason; but we believe that he is obliged to be a servant to the Licensing Act, which we also believe to be about the most iniquitous, mean, and pettifogging master a mau

can serve. That there must be law and order preserved we acknowledge and demand, but we deny that such inquisitorial means as these are requisite. Licensing powers should be vested in local bodies, who should make their own liquor laws. What suits Wellington will not suit Gisborne. This is, though a town, essentially a country town, and may be more reasonably compared to the Wellington of twenty years ago than the Wellington of the present day. In foisting this precious Licensing Act upon us the Legislature have dressed the little boy Gisborne in his big brother Wellington’s clothes, and they hang very loosely on him. As with the Licensing Act, so with many others. We only get the misfits from larger places, and until we strike out very boldly we shall never get measured for a suit that will fit us. Leave has been asked in the House to amend the Licensing Act, 1881, but it is said that no material changes aro intended; only the working of it has been found unsatisfactory. If ever it proves to be anything else we are mistaken. Instead of amendment repeal is wanted. Surely the local bodies might best be entrusted with the making and carrying out of laws affecting, as the Licensing laws necessarily must do, every place differently. Now is the time, if the public have any hope of repealing the existent unjust and irksome Licensing Act, to try to enforce such repeal. The Act is under amendment. Like an unseaworthy ship, belonging to dishonest owners, it is rotten and ivormeaten, but the owners have taken it into dock, and will tinker it up, and launch it afresh, newly coppered, and with a nice coat of paint, and will try and run it with a renewed class, while those who sail in it must suffer every day from the defects of its vexatious clauses. Let them strike for repeal while the iron is hot, and boldly condemn the rotten hull, spite of its new paint, and make the owners launch a new ship instead of tinkering up the old one. We have used the words “ mean and hypocritical ” in connection with this Act, and we have done so advisedly. We hold that “ The Licensing Act, 1881,” was passed simply to gratify the agitation then being made by the Temperance Party, a party bearing weighty political significance. We could not afford to part with the immense portion of our revenue derived from the liquor traffic, so, as a hypocritical apology, we passed this wretchedly one-sided Act, entailing needless and vexatious surveillance and worry upon a respectable class of men —the hotel-keepers—who simply retail the material from which our largest revenue is derived. This we repeat was done as a political apology to the Temperance Party, and, like the bridge which was short at both ends, it satisfies nobody. If we cannot be honest enough to say boldly that we want the money and won’t forfeit it for Temperance principles, surely we might be a little ashamed of making a scapegoat of the men to whom we look for the sale of the material which supplies us with that money. But then you see we.like to advocate temperance principles without parting with any possible benefit arising from the sale of intoxicating liquors. We want to keep our sin and yet be saints; and to this end we mus't sacrifice somebody, and as the hotel-keepers are the easiest got at, we sacrifice them to this Moloch of the Legislature. If this does not call for repeal we know of nothing that does. We feel sure that on another election—which is surely not far distant—the publican interest, one of the most powerful in ihe country, will make a sine qua non, where their vote goes, of direct opposition to an Act by which their interests are so vitally endangered. Could we see one redeeming feature in this A ct; if it were apparent that any public good had resulted from it, we would be fully prepared to give it a further trial; but so far from having been in any way beneficial, it has been productive of evil, and has engendered suspicion, jealousy, and evasion and contempt of the law. It has not beeu the means of decreasing drunkenness or crime in any one way. Take the police statistics of the largest cities of the Colony, and we shall find more instances of youthful crime aud debauchery since the introduction of this Act than previous to it. It has proved a miserable failure in every right light, and a brilliant success in every wrong one. We do not condemn the Act without suggesting an alternative. Let local bodies be vested with the power of liquor legislation. Do away with that existent class legislation which allows the man who can afford to live in hotels and clubs, or keep his own private cellar, the enjoyment of that glass of beer which is denied on Sundays to the w'orking man, who cannot afford any of these things, and whose beer, if purchased on the Saturday night, would be flat, stale, and tasteless on the Sunday. Fair play, Messieurs of the Legislature ! You have, to suit your own class purposes, passed a foolish and vexatious Act. You have now a chance of undoing your folly and injustice, and you are worse than mad if you don’t take it. Our word for it, you will feel the effect at the next general election. For this district alone we quite think that if an example was needed to point out the injust ice and hardship of “ The Licensing Act, 1881,” we need only refer to the Resident Magistrate’s Court aud the case of Mr T. J. Dickson.