The Daily News. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1918. THE LICENSING BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1918, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1918. THE LICENSING BILL.

The Licensing Bill is the product of compromise, and for that reason cannot lie expected to wholly please either the Prohibitionists or The Trade. Making allowance, however, for the circumstances of its birth, the measure, as finally agreed to by the House on Tuesday night, should give a certain measure of satisfaction to the majority of the people. In the first place, it affords an opportunity of testing the views of the country on the Efficiency Board's proposal of doing away with the drink traffic almost immediately and paying compensation to the amount of £4,500,000. In the original Bill the extent of the amount to be paid was not specified, but this omission was very properly rectified in Committee. Probably the Bill is one of the most important measures ever considered by Cabinet, for it affects the whole future course of our social habits, and involves the country in a heavy liability; yet we have Sir Joseph "Ward's declaration that he "did not know on what data the Efficiency Board worked when it fixed the limit at four and a half millions, nor on what basis the accountant worked who made the estimate for the Premier." Sir Joseph Ward occupies a position in the Cabinet only second to the Premier; he is also Minister of Finance; yet he did not bother to arm himself with this very important information before the Bill was presented to the House. If this is the way important matters are treated by members of the Cabinet, it is little wonder we have so much defective legislation, But this by the way. On the Premier's figures, the compensation fixed appears to be equitable, though naturally enough The Trade will not be favorably impressed with the idea of giving up a lucrative business for compensation based on two years' profits. The future of the liquor traffic, however, is one which the people must decide, and vested interests must be subordinate to their will. The principle of paying compensation is one that will commend itself to fair-minded people, and it is one that should be followed wherever the State steps in and destroys a business that is perfectly legitimate, and in which large sums of money have been invested. It is the licensed trade to-day, but it may be another trade to-morrow. Such an equitable provision will, if we mistake not, strengthen the voting of the no-license party, for hitherto not an inconsiderable number of people, whilst dissatisfied with existing conditions, could not bring themselves to voting out a business without the payment of compensation. The House has done its duty in arranging for a poll to be taken at an early date on the proposal. If the poll results in continuance then a second one is to bt held concurrently with the electoral polls, the issues being continuance, State control and prohibition without compensation, decided by a bare majority. The House refused to apply the principle of preferential voting to this poll. Why, it is hard to understand, because nothing fairer for ascertaining the views of the electors could be devised. With this exception, the proposal should meet with general approval. Mr. Massey stated that "in the event of State control being adopted, if the Government paid ten millions for The Trade it would have an asset to represent that sum." Surely the Government does not suggest that the State should take over the whole trade—lock, stock and barrel. Advocates of State control have never suggested that, it is necessary to keep going all the hotels, etc., for they believe the number could be reduced very considerably and still satisfy requirements. In such a case the other buildings would have a definite commercial value. The payment of some compensation might be equitable in such cases, but to suggest that the country, in the event of its launching out into the business, should continue to maintain all the present public houses, breweries, etc., is ridiculous. However, Parliament has now given the people of the Dominion the opportunity of first deciding whether the traffic is to continue or not, and, for the first' time, a bare majority is to decide the issue. The circumstances of the second poll need not unduly concern us until the first poll is taken. That it will evoke great interest goes without saying, for it marks an entirely new departure in connection with the drink question, giving the pub- ■ lie the opportunity of voting it out on terns that, everything considered, may be regarded l as fair and equitable.