The Herald and the Licensing Bench.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3586, 24 June 1880, Page 2

The Herald and the Licensing Bench.

The following ar.'cle appears ia oar Auckland oouiempo'-ai/ end as it discusses the aclion of the Licensing Com* nmsiooers in the matter of closing certain „ public houses from several points of riew it may be of interest to oar readers :—

" The principle of option in connection witu the licensing of public houses was adopted by Parliament as a means of enabling a majority of two-thirds of the populaiion in any locality to limit the number of places of public entertainment. It is a very beneficipl power, which how* ever, requires to be amended by affording increased facilities for eliciting toe opinion - of the locality. There is a hitch—the person applying for a license is interested in spending money to obtain signatures to a petition in his iavor; its opponents have no such direct interest and no funds" at their disposal, and so are placed at a ■ great disadvantage. It appears that at the Thames the Licensing Commissioners hare usurped the powers with waich Parliament endowed the inhabitants of the. locality, and the result has been the infliction of a gross injustice. This is the first instance of an assumption of : the kind, and it is, one of. fffcA; serious a description that it.is important attention should be devoiid to it. If the- >- course adopted, by the Commissionerft<at the Thames was to become general, ho licensed victualler, no owner of a licensed house would be safe; they nrght be ruined by a st.oke of the.pen, because under these circumstances no olaim for compensation could be established, - although the local option provides, as '. ; regards houses in existence, the enforce* meat of that principle of justice. The renew 1 of >ie licenses for six houses, the property of a resident of the Thames, has i>?en refused by the local Commissioners on the ground that they are not required, and without one penny' of compensation. The proceeding is a cvuei and unjustifiable one, and entirely . i/. excess of the powers the commhsoners possess. Such a display of ignorance of the limits of !iei> dut'C by the Commis* sioners is a serous matter because, what was the fate of one person yesterday may be that of some one el:.e to-morrow. - No one is safe. Wnat h:ts been done at the Thames meeting m«y be repeated or it may ext?n I to other realities, the kw be further oferriddm, and the licensed victuallers bo placed at the mercy of any Commissioners with an eccentric con* cepti lof their dudes. Nay, more, the presiding Commiasione ', who, of course, largely influences his.colleagues, might if ■ he were a splenetic person, or if he had a grudge to avenge, inflict incalculable injury on the subject of his bad temper or malicious motive. It is a remarkable—a me si renarkable—fealave ia connsciion with the late decisions at the Tuames that ~. no oi.her rentals \<ere refused except for }\\ the hoasesof one perso^jaud there will be

a concurrence of opinion that a proceeding of the kind bag a very unpleasant aspect, and tbiit some explanation is inVpera lively required. First, we see the Commissioners Lave exceeded their functions, usurped a power belonging io the inhabitants, and deprived the sufferer of all claim to compensation and next, that they have made one person only the subject of their proceedings. The Communist who assails the rights of property could not do more than has been done by the Thames Commissioners.

" There will be a disposition to treat with incredulity a statement which implies so high-handed a proceeding, and so monstrous an injustice, and the first thought that will suggest itself is, that the Commissioners must have had sorre sufficient reason for the course they took. But it is the went of this reason that makes their conduct so inexplicable and indefeasible. They stated a reason, but it was worthless, because it had nothing to do with the discharge of their duties. They considered that the six houses were not required, and so they closed them, destroyed their trade, destroyed the value of the houses for the purpose for which they were designed, destroyed them as property, because they were not adapted Jfor any other purpose. There was no^jretence that they were not properly conducted, no complaint with rtgard to them on the part of the police ; no single objection except that raised by_ the Commissioners themselves that they were not required. It would appear that there never have been any complaints. The proceeding of the Commissioners is totally at variance with the course hitherto pursued at the Thames, and every other part of tl a colony. Tne previous chairman of the Commissioners laid down and acted upoa a principle as clear as equitable. He held that so long as a house had the accommodation required by the Act, and the police were satisfied it was respectably conducted, thelicense should be renewed, considering the rent and taxes afforded a sufficient guarantee. "The change in the proceedings of the Commissioners is synchronous with the assumption of the position of their chairman by the new Resident Ma^isti-ate, and we have therefore some justification for assuming ihafc he has been the moving spirit in the whole matter. If that be so it must be deemed an evil omen of the manner in which he may be expecied Io discharge his other duties that he has displayed such amazing ignorance in this instance, and so really bad a spirit for that must be deemed a bad spirit, and a very bad one, which would without compunction, and spontaneously so greatly injure the material interests of one ot the community. We do not envy the man who - could conceive that with no other plea to justify him than that houses were not wanted he could deal so ruthlessly with the interests of another. It would go hard with the world if all who possessed power used it with as little consideration. The decision, as a fact, is that of the Commissioners, but ire refuse to regard it in that light when we know that they did not act in this manner till the new resident magistrate became their chairman. There is an allegation which has not necessarily any connection with the decision of the Commissioners. It is slated that the chairman has evinced anything but a friendly feeling to the gentleman whose s>s houses have been closed —that there was a personal difference betw^sn them, which in the case of anyone might be considered unfavourable to an impartial judgment. This would not be a sufficient reason for his abdicating his position, but it should certainly have induced him to leave the decision entirely in the hands of his col leagues, especially when it was to be of so extraordinary a Hnd and so likely to suggest the belief that adverse feeling influenced the conduct o? the chairman. He should Lave been keenly solicitous to avoid the possibPity of such an imputation, for it is not sufficient that an official discharging duties such as his should be conscious that he does not deserve it. His inner consciousness cannot be a conviction to the mind, which ought to be free of doubts as to the motives which influence a public servant. Whether there is a remedy for the injury which has been done and the injustice inflicted we cannot say, but if so there should be a dogged recourse to it. The case is one which, it seems to us, the trade should make their own. They ought; to stand shoulder t» shoulder in a matter of this kind." .'.-.■