THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1893. THE LICENSED VICTULLERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2544, 19 August 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1893. THE LICENSED VICTULLERS.

Aftkr having been surfeited with temperance oratory it is refreshing to hear something from the other side Those engaged in the liquor traffic very seldom indeed hold public meetings in support of it. They listen and say nothing, and we believe that in doing so they act wisely, because to tell the truth there is not a great deal to be said on. their side. The Licensed Victuallers of Canterbury, however, have broken the ice. On last Tuesday they met in solemn conclave in Christchurch, made several speeches from their point of view, and passed resolutions condemnatory of the prevailing disposition interfere with their business. The first thing r e desire to do is to congratulate them on the and businesslike manner in which they their meeting. It is not to be expeiT' V'om them that they can view with any grea« degree of pleasure the growing disposition to destroy their business, and consequently no one could find fault with them for standing up for their own rights. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, therefore, it is only what might be expected that they should look after their own interest. The fashionable way to speak of a temperance reformer is to characterise him as a fanatic, and call him many ugly names. JMoue of that was indulged in at the Christchurch meeting, and it is much to the credit of those who took part in it that they avoided it. There is no justification for calling temperance reformers names. They are people who feel that intoxicating drinks are the cause of a great deal of social misery, and their aim is to remedy it. One very funny incident was the JRev. Mr Isitt’s request to be allowed to be present, and we think the meeting made a mistake in not admitting him. Mr Isitt secured a point in being refused admittance ; he can now say they were afraid of him. But coming to the business, the first resolution declared that the introduction “ of prohibitive measures should be strenuously opposed by the Government as being an infringement of the natural rights of the people. From this point of view we differ. The Direct Veto is not a prohibitive measure. It simply gives the people the right to grant or refuse licenses, and that is not prohibition. Then as regards the natural rights of the people, surely to possess a vote is a natural right. It is a natural right to drink if one desires to do so; it is also his natural right to refuse it. There is no use in talking about natural rights in connection with the liquor traffic. There is no such thing. The present Ant of Parliament has curtailed the natural rights of publicans, as it interferes with their liWtie.? in a thousand and one ways. If those engaged in the liquor traffic enjoyed the natural right? of citizens they would be allowed to carry on their trade in the same uurestrtdled jyay that grocers, drapers, and other trad people do. Then again as regards the natural eights of those who desire to drink so far as wo i understand the Direct Vetoists they do | not propose to deprive them of it. All they say is “ give us votes to grant or refuse licenses, but even if no licenses are graute'ithecitizonsareuotdop’ivdd* f their natural rights. The licenses of the houses kept fur their accommodation would have been refused, but the people would be fiee to drink all the same if t ey could get it. It is no use to talk of natural rights. It is a man’s natural right to got drunk, but society objects and t e law claps him in the lock up, and thus Im is deprived of his natural right. The natural right of. the individual is always g ,vernod by the c dJvctivQ right of the people, and con jo-

quently no man can claim any more right than that which the people think fit to give him. If the people of this colony, therefore, decide on refusing to grant licensee, it iB their natural right to do so, but the licensed victuallers say that the great majority of the people are in favor of the public houses, and if so why do they object to the direct veto. The direct veto gives all the power to the people and if the majority of them favor public houses no power on earth can close them. If tha licensed victuallers believe what they say they ought to favor giviug the power to the people. Another extraordinary point was the S quoting of John Bright as oppossd to the Direct Veto. John Bright was opposed to the Factory Acts, and no member of Parliament opposed the Ten Hours Bill with greater violence. He characterised it as "one of the worst measures ever passed iu the shape of an Act of the Legislature. John Bright was three-parts humbug and onepaH genuine. He was a good man for the mercantile class only. In Christchurch he was quoted as having said that it was not iu the power of Parliament to change the habits of the people. > This is correct, but it is in the power of the people to change their own habits, and Parliament ought to have no power to prevent them from doing so. At present Parliament licenses public . houses to enable the people to get drunk, and the people only ask the power to put such a temptation out of their way. If the people decided on changing their habits, they have a perfeet right to do so, and also to remove any impediment to their success. It is vory remarkable that it is the men who have already changed their habits who are endeavouring to remove the source 1 of temptation. The total abstainer pees danger to himself and others Uti houses being licensed for the sale of drink, and eonsequently wishes this menace to his changed habits removed. Parliament haa not been asked to change the habits of the people, but it has been asked for the power to enable the people to change their habits, and they ought to possess it. It is no use to argue that the principle of the Direct Veto is wrong. Its position is logical, and no one can gainsay it. One feature of the Chi'iatchurcb meeting was that no .one claimed compensation. That appears to be knocked on the head, and as dead as Julius Caesar. It will certainly come very hard on people who have invested their money iu the traffic, if Prohibition ever comes to pass, but there is this to be said; they have had a good innings, and most of them have made sufficient to start them iu some other occupation. However, we f'el sure that complete pr hibition is a long way oil' yet, although the Direct Veto must become law before long.