MR FOX'S NEW LOCAL OPTION BILL.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2634, 18 June 1877, Page 2

MR FOX'S NEW LOCAL OPTION BILL.

The Hon. W. Fox, at a public meeting held at Wanganui last week, gave the following outline of the new Bill he purposes introducing next session :— ■■ The alterations which it was proposed should bo made in the present Licensing ' Law by the Permissive Or Local Option Bill, he would explain. By the present law, Licensing Courts have been instituted, composed of nominees of the Government, into whose hands the vast monopoly has passed; but it was not proposed to interfere with their duties or powers, save in one important particular. ■ The first duty of the Court was to decide upon the qualifications of the applicant for a license ; the second, as to tbe suitability of the premises. With these duties it was not proposed to interfere. The third question they had to decide was, whether the license was wanted—not in the interests of the publican, or importer, or distiller—but in the interests of the .people of the district. By the Permissive Bill tlrs most important question would be taken out of the bands of the Court, and relegated to the people themselves to decide—he hoped to the adult males .and females of every licensing district. There . were one or two slight variations «f opinion as to how the will of the should be expressed. Mr Stout and other*, backed by the authority of constitutional usage, wished the matte? "decided by a simple majority of one; for himself, he was liberal enough to abide by the result. involved in recognising a majority of three-fourths. Mr Stout's bill relegated the matter to a simple majority of the ratepayers ;< he, on the other -hand, was willing that it should be decided by twothirds of the number .who recorded their votes—the Resident Magistrate forwarding voting papers to every householder, whose duty it would be simply to fill in the word " yes " or "no " in answer to the query therein contained, as to whether any license should be granted within' the' district. The speaker here explained that the Licensing Bill introduced by him in 1873 contained the ' germ of the permissive principle, but the machinery for carrying it into effect had been so mutilated by its opponents that it was rendered unworkable. In addition to the stale arguments against the bill, that it would not effect the objects aimed at and that it was an interference .with, personal liberty, it was now urged that obtaining ■ the voice of the people in the way proposed was unconstitutional —was Napoleonic—was in the form of a plebiscite. To this he might answer, that if it was unconstitutional, it was in accordance with the practice- of the British Parliament, which had recognised the principle when dealing with the questions of pub* lie sc' <'<ols and public libraries.- ■ ' '■"