ALCOHOLOGY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 227, 31 January 1911, Page 7

ALCOHOLOGY.

LAW AND ALCOHOL. (Published by Arrangement). Statue law is the expression of public feeling and opinion on any given subject. Hence if we would know what is the general pulilic sentiment on any question we may expect to find it out by reference to statute law on it. This is more clearly seen if we consider recent legislation. Now if this method of enquiry be adopted in consideration of the popular verdict on liquor and the liquor trade, a reasonable conclusion may be arrived at as to how it is regarded by the people. The iatest legislation in New Zealand is the Licensing Amendment Act of 1910. A general reading of this Act shows that there is a determination to make the law felt—in reality as well as in form. Such minute definitions of what is meant by "storing" liquor so as to stop all those evasions of the intention of the law as to the carrying out of no-license where it is the will of the inhabitants, as expressed at the polls, throws much light on the hitherto persistent endeavors of liquor traders to retain tneir hold of districts where even three-fifths of the people have said "No!" to them.

THE TWENTY-ONE YEARS' LIMIT is a striking feature of the new law. The Act of WOB provides that liquor shall not be supplied "in licensed premises, by purchase or otherwise, to be consumed on the premises" to any person apparently under the age of "eighteen years"; this is now altered to "twenty-one years." This of itself is a confession—a public, legislative confession—that at least the use of intoxicating drinks is not necessary for youth; and, more than that, it is dangerous for them, and that the use of alcohol by persons under twenty-one is detrimental to the public welfare. This is a great public admission. Where, then, is the reason for allowing intoxicants to be dispensed to those over the agelimit set? Why not set it at twenty-five, or any other age 1 Do not those over the legal majority in age require protection? A large question is opened up here; and tho law-makers who 9ay twenty-ona should he asked why they leave adults (not all) to fight the battle unprotected. It is to be hoped that this provision will prevent the drinking that has lately been going on among the youth of our land; and that pot-ball and other banquets held in hotels will be brought under careful supervision.

THE MAORIS, too, are protected under the amended lart of 1910, The special provisions of the Act of 1308 as to the effect of no-licens« in no-license districts are to apply to native areas, as well as the restrictions imposed on such areas by the amending Act. There is, however, one very peculiar difference between the way the pakelias and the Maoris are treated under the new law. Maoris can apply the principle of absolute prohibition to themselves in their own native areas, if they so determine, by a simple majority; while tlte pakehas must not do so unless they can make the change on the votes of three-fifths of the voters. This is another of tne puzzles of the Act. The principle is admitted that the majority should rule, and yet that principle must not apply to the pakeha It will need some clever sophistry on the part of the liquor advocates to get over this glaring inconsistency in the law. They had better say straight out that they care nothing for anybody else, and say, "I like it," or "I get profit out of it." The provisions in regard to barmaids are also valuable. After June 1 this year no barmaids can be employed unless registered; and none can register unless they were so employed for three months previous to the passing of. this Act; and if they cease to serve as barmaids for two years they are struck off the register. It is plain, then, that the day is not far distant when there will he no barmaids in New Zealand. The locker system and drinking clubs in no-license areas are carefully provided against, and one can hardly see how the liquor people can evade the stringent restrictions of the Act. Generally, a study of this legislation shows two things: a recognition that the sale (and therefore use) of alcoholic liquors is dangerous, and then a dread of touching it lest some dire calamity befal the country. What is it? ' Financial? Political? Certainly it is not because they think we could not get along without liquor that our legislators handle this matter so timidly. It reminds one of a courtier of Elizabeth's day who wrote: "Fain would T H/, but I fear to fall." To that our reply is "Fear not, let all thou aim'st at be thy country's, thy God's, and Truth's."