LICENSING QUESTS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 70, 9 August 1912, Page 5

LICENSING QUESTS

BILL BEFOSE THE HOUSE. MONOPOLY ATTACKED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representative* tins evening, Mr. A. S. Malcolm mioved- the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill, providing that at the next and everv subsequent licensing poll the majority required to determine 'any question submitted to the electors at the poll shall be 55 per cent, of the -total number of votes recorded in each district, or throughout New Zealand as the case may be, - and that the Licensing Act, 1908, shall bo read and construed accordingly! He said that the principle -endorsed by the Bill was so well known- to members that he did not intend to speak much on the measure. AH members were pledgedto vote one way or the other. He hoped the friends of the Bill would refrain from speaking, and so help the measure. Mr. Dickson said that he was pledged to support the three-fifths majority, 'and must oppose the Bill. He mentioned the fact that there was no provision in the voting paper for national continuance. He hoped the error would be rectified. He strongly objecte'* to a private member introducing such a Bill, as it should be a policy measure of the Government. Mr. Wilford said that he was for 55 per cent, on local option- and 60 per cent, on national option. The measure had l>cen badly drafted. He endorsed what Mr. Dickson had said, viz., that the measure should have emanated from the Government and not from a private member. There was no doubt -that prohibition would come. It might even come on a bare majoritv. but if it did it would not be stable. 'He belonged to the f-reat third party who were not represented by executives or committees of any sort. The cause of the fomenting of temperance -legislation was tied houses-. The huge prices demanded for the goodwill of hotels made it impossible for a lessee to keep within the four comers of the law and pay interest on his money. At the same time he referred to the great monopoly possessed by brewers and hotelkeepers, simply through being in possession- of a small piece of paper issued by the State. He strongly urged inspection bv the Government of all liquor sold in- .hotels. Mr. Bradney said that he belonged to the great moderates. Ho was returned to 'support the three-fifths majority, and he -would do it.

_ Mr. Russell said that it was not possible to wipe out the national usages of the people by a bare majority vote' Would Parliament lav it down that alii who were used to alcoholic liquor and had not been harmed by it were to be deprived of it? He suggested setting ur> a royal commission, consisting of all sections of the community, including scientific men, to be given 12 months to inquire into the whole liquor question _ and advise Parliament what was possible in a country like New Zealand. The commission could also consider the great fiscal issues involved. Virtually, the people now drank as much as thev did years ago, despite the activities and accomplishments of the no-license party during the period. It was to be hoped that the House would study the reasonable wants of tiie moderates of the country.

Mr. E. Newman said that he was unwillingly compelled: to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Hanan said that the Government had deliberately ignored the Bill. The only deduction was that the Government was not in favor of the Bill. The Prime Minister had informed a deputation that tbe Government would not introduce legislation this session. The motive of the Government in handing the Bill over to a private member was to lead no, license members to believe that thev were .shepherding the Bill. The no-license people bad now got the measure of the Government in regard to their candour and honesty^ Mr. Robertson said that he would support the Bill, because it was a. democratic step towards the attitude that the majority should rule. Mv. Statham said that he stood for the abolition of drunkenness, hut was not a prohibitionist. He .favored (lie three-fifths majority, which rave a proper stability to the question. In the future thev mi.qht find that thev would be prohibited from smoking on' n have majority vote, that they must go te some particular chuTeh, and what" food they must rat. Mr. Mcftiilluni did not agree with national prohibition. He had no objection to the fl. r ) per cent, majoritv for loral option. There was no logic in the miserable compromise n f ;".i per cent, -for rational prohibition. The House should pay some attention to what, would occur in the ease of restoration. Mr. Isitt said that the bnndiean which the no-licensfc paHv had to submit to was a. , r )0 ner cent, handicap. Was that right.? The party had to poll 104,000 votes before it could count one. He would be compelled, as a democrat, to defend such a thing. Tf members were anxious for a fair thing to insure stability they might impose a reasonable ' handicap. Mr. Campbell regretted that the Bill did not contain some clause dealing with tied houses and the quality of "liquor sold. Mr. Glover said that the measure was too drastic, and should not he brought forward at this juncture. The country did not desire legislation on the question just now. Mr. Ooittes said that he had told his constituents that he would support the three-fifths majority, and ho intended doing it. It was to his mind sound logic to insist on a substantial majority °in this matter. He was in favor of State or municipal control, but preferred the latter.

Mr. Payne said tha 1 there, were 17,000 people who derived their living from 'the trade, mid who would i>e thrown out of employment. The State should undertake to find employment for those people Before prohibition wa; nn-ncd. Mr. Davey was opposed lo local option, as it was manifestly unfair (o close up a man on one side of the street And leave the man on the ot.:ev side open. Mr. Fisher announced iliat ,'ie would vote for the EiTi in ;'conic-i-.- v ith -his election pledges. He 1 •-" »r was a prohibitionist, but lie had ahvavs voted 1 for prohibition. They bad no to give to any section, of the community facilities to ruin another section.

Mr. Atmore favors! sv.:i?. n;t i.opolv. Mr. Brown said ■wu- if the Bill had asked for a local option poll to lie taken on some day oth :r (inn ek.tion day, he would have sun.vi icl i(.

Mr. Myers reprobated the idea that a man's trade or calling should be a bar to bis eligibility for a seat in the Leirislature. Referring to the (juestioii of inspection, he declared that the trade would welcome the appointment of inspectors to see that the liquor supplied was of the right quality. He contended that only 2C5 per cent, of those who voted for No-license were, really Prohibitionists. He would be prepared to see the Government give the people an opportunity to vote for State or municipal control of the traffic. The change should be made without compensation, but a fair number of years should be allowed after such a vote, in justice to the trade. Mr. Malcolm having replied, a division was taken, and resulted in 42 against and 32 for. The division list is as follows: Aves (32).—Messrs. Anderson, Bell, Biiddo. Buxt™ fn n ,.ir,..f! y -^».'Tni-.ia--.

llino, Isitt, Lang, Laurenson, Lee, Malcolm, Mander, Dr. Newman, Ngata, Nosworthy, Okey, Payne, Pearce, Poland, Robertson, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Veiteh, Wilson and Young. Noes (42).—Messrs. Atmore, J. Bollard, R. F. Bollard, Brariney, Brown, Buchanan, Buiek, Campbell, Carroll, Coates, Colvin, Davcy, Dickie, Diclson, Forbes, Frascr, Clover, Guthrie, Herdman, Hernes, Hunter, Macdonald, McCallum, E. McKenzie, Myers, E. Newman, Parata, Pomare, Reed, R. 11. Rhodes, T W Rhodes, Russell, Scott, Seddon, Sidey p' H. Smith, R. W. Smith, Statham, J.' c" riiomson, Ward, Wilford, and Witty. Three members were absent, and Mr' Massey (for) and Mr. Allen (against) the Bill were paired. The House rose at 11.10.