Mr Stout on Local Option.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2942, 20 July 1878, Page 2

Mr Stout on Local Option.

In his address to his constituents of the City of Dunedin recently, the Hon. the Attorney-General delivered himself on the question of Local Option as follows. We quote from the Morning Herald's report :■—- '

There was another question that came before Parliament to which I desire to refer. In referring to it, lam conscious that possibly, even probably, the majority of my constituents dp not agree with me, 1 consider it due not only to myself that I should give free expression to the opinions which I hold, and if my constituents do not agree with all I say I cannot help it, for I xsannot change my opinions even to please them. I now come to the licensing question. Upon that question-I have taken up a certain and decided position, and not only in the General Assembly, but also upon the occasion of my first contest for Caversham, and subsequently in the Provincial Council, I was never afraid to assert my views upon this subject,. In dealing with this question, vI may say that I know there are some people in the community who think that they can frighten people by saying, " If you vote for a Local Option Bill and do not, give compensation to the publicans, you will have the block vote against you." Then even if I should have the "block vote" against me I would not change my opinions to keep my seat. I may sa^ that lam in favor of giving to the people the most direct control, not only in reference to this licensing question, frat-also in regard to all others. The Local Option Bill simply asks to give the people the greatest control which can be given to them. Why should any class be afraid to give such power to the people, and why should they not have the same power as the Licensing Bench. We have a Local Option Bill which is already law, and if two-thirds of the inhabitants in any licensing district —Leith Ward, for instance —wish that there shall be no public-house in Leith Ward, they can prevent it; for, if two-thirds of them vote ; by way of memorial against each publican, the Licensing Bench would have to say that it could not grant the license. The alteration I wish to see is this: that instead of two-thirds of the people voting against each individual publican, the vote should be taken over the whole district every three years. I say that that is the fairest way of approaching such a subject as this. I notice that the candidates during the recent Dunedin election were all raising this question. They Baid, "We are in favour of a Local Option Bill, but we want compensation." I say that any person who talks about a Lo<jal Option Bill, and at the same time speaks about compensatioa, should say that he was against Local Option altogether. Why should a publican be compensated? Is it because he has lost hi* license P No one proposes to take it from him till the end of the year. The State says to the publican that in consideration of the sum which he pays it will allow him to sell liquor for one year. If the State fulfils it contract and says, " You shall sell for one year, but not for the next year," what right has the publican to compensation at all ? I ask you to look at this- question of compensation in another light, and I want to know for what is the compensation to be given P Is it for the building? Well, no one proposes to take the building, nor does anyone propose to take the trade from the publican. All that the State proposes to say is, " You shall not sell liquor." (Laughter.) Can it be said that there is a good-will to that ? You know that all those people who are licensed are licensed not merely to sell liquor, but also to look after travellers and such like. I ask you to look at it this way: You take nothing from them except their good-will and trade, and if that is so profitable then I say that they are paying too small a license fee to the State, and we will have to get more money from them than in the past, and do as in Glasgow—put the licenses up to auction, and see how high a price they will fetch. They say that they have a vested right, and that they require compensation for these vested rights. Well, I will read to you two short extracts from two of the ablest political writers on English Jurisprudence. One is by George Cornevrall Lewu, and the other is from Austin. Lewis says :— " When a Legislature passes a law not for any temporary purposes, nor limited as to the time of its operation, and which therefore may be reasonably expected to be permanent, and persons, confiding in its permanency, embark their capital, bestow their labor, or shape the course ot their life, so that their onjy hope of success is founded on the existence of the law, the rights which theyghave acquired in the reliance upon its continuance are termed vested rights ; and persons in this situation are considered as having a moral claim on the Legislature for the maintenance of the law, or at least for the allowance of a sufficient lime''to withdraw their investments, and- to take the measures necessary for guarding against the losb con*

sequent on so large a change." Then he again says: |; The doctrine of vested rights must not be stretched too far, as there is scarcely a right on which some expectations are not founded, and which does not in some degree serve as a guide of conduct. It can only be admitted where the loss would be great, and the probability of the law being repealed or modified was inconsiderable." Well, of course, as that is concerning the law of interests, the publicans have been taking their licenses under this law. So far as the vested right is concerned, it would come under this category. He again says, " that the doctrine of vested rights must not be stretched too far.'' Then Austin says '.—• "When it is said that the legislature ought not to deprive parties of their, vested rights, all that is meant is this: That the rights styled 'vested' are sacred or inviolable, or are such as the parlies ought not to v be deprived ! of by the Legislature. Like a thousand other propositions, which sound speciously „ to the ear, it is either purely identical and, tells us. nothing, or begs the question at : issue. If it mean that there are no cases in which the rights of parties.are not to yield to considerations of expediency, the ' proposition is manifestly false, and conflicts with the practice of every Legislature on earth. When the expression 'vested right' is used on such occasions, it means one or another of two things. First, that the right in question ought not to be interfered with by the Legisl%, ture, which (as I have remarked already^ begs the question at issue ; or, secondly,' that in interfering with rights, the Legislature ought to tread with the greatest possible caution, and ought not to abolish them without a great and manifest preponderance of general utility. And it may be added, the proposition, as thus understood, is just applicable to contingent rights, or to chances or possibilities of rights, as to vested rights, or right's properly so called. To deprive a man of an expectancy, without a manifest. preponderance of general utility, were * just as pernicious as to deprive him of a right without the same reason to justify the measure." So, as Austin puts it, if you are going to compensate the publican you should also compensate those who have erected suitable houses for hotels, but who have been refused licenses by the Bench. Why should they not be compensated as well as those who hare got licenses? I cannot see the distinction. Is it not very peculiar that at present the Licensing Bench' may say to a man, "Your license is refused," and give no reasons, and from whose decision there is no appeal, and yet no one talks about compensation in such cases. Thjen how does it happen that when the people say that there shall be no licenses, compensation is demanded, but when', the Bench say so, you ask none P Therefore, as far as compensation is concerned, it is what I may term illogical, and absurd. I think, also, that the discussion of this licensing question every three years would have an immense effect upon the Colony. I believe that there is too much drinking and drunkenness in this Colony, and I believe that the people should do all they can to put down this drunkenness which is ruining our young men. There is not one in Dunedin, if he chooses to enquire, but can point to some one who has been destroyed by this cvi?, and it therefore behoves everyone who has the feeling of manhood to do what he can to put under this terrible curse. . . ' f