NEW LICENSING BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2702, 23 August 1894, Page 2

NEW LICENSING BILL.

In another column will bo found a synopsis of the new Licensing Bill. In aur opinion Mr Seddon has made a mistake jn introducing it this session. It is not wanted; j.p cannot, be rnado use of for three years, and eonsoouontly it must remain a dead letter until Glancing cursorily at it we find the elective principle destroyed in the constitution of the licensing committee. Instead of the people electing tho committee in future it is to be composed of the chairmen of local bodies. Of course it must be remembered that tho committee has very little to do. The vote of the people will direct its actions. If the people vote for prohibition then prohibit it must; if for reduction reduce it must; if for a cmtiuuanoo of the traffic uo public bouse can be closed;

so it does not much matter who shall constitute the committee. But there is this to be considered: we are in the habit of having almost every body holding a public position elected in New Zealand, and without doubt it is the right, proper, and trulv democratic method. The election of local bodies has its weak points; the best men are often left out, but it is the safest system, because it gives the people the means of punishing maladministration. For these reasons the proposal to appoint the committee by a statute, instead of by election, will and should not. be favored. The elective principle must not be deviated from. It is true that chairmen of local bodies are at present elected, but that is not sufficient; the people must have the power to hold a direct election of licensing committees, and we have no doubt the measure will be amended in this direction before it pa 1 ses into law. The object in view is apparently to save expense, for it has also been provided that local option votes shall be taken on the same day and in the same manner as the general ejection of members of Parliament every three years. That has been proposed often before, but we cannot see how it will work. If general elections of members of Parliament were certain to be held every three years it would work right enough, but they are not For instance, the other day the Minister of Lands threatened to bring about a dissolution of Parliament, and if that had taken place how could the local option vote be taken then? It is. possible to have general elections more frequently than every three years, and in that case the local option poll could not be taken. Let us suppose, for instance, that something occurred next year which would cause a dissolution, what would the position be then ? The licenses have been granted for three years, and they cannot be cancelled in the meantime. To take a local option poll next year would be absurd, for its result could not be given effect to for two years afterwards. Then in the ordinary course of things no general election would take place until 1898, that is more than twelve mouths after the present licenses expired, in which case matters would be considerably mixed up. We do not like mixing up pot-house politics with general politics. It must lead to bad results. The people have enough to do to think of one thing at the time, but if this is to be done let it be done in a workable manner. Let the licenses be made co- terminable with Parliament, and then it will work. For instance, let licenses be granted immediately after each election, not for three years, two years, or one year, but during the life of the Parliament then elected. If this is done the licenses will expire immediately after every general election, and the wishes of the electors having been ascertained they can be prohibited, reduced, or renewed in conformity with the result of the local option then taken.