THE LICENSING BENCH AND THE ADVERTISER.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue XI, 25 June 1880, Page 2

THE LICENSING BENCH AND THE ADVERTISER.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.)

Sib,—l was rather astonished, on reading in the morning paper the editorial reply in answer to the leading article in ' the Auckland Herald, relative to the the Licensing Commissioners and their late decision respecting public houses here. The party who wrote it must be a poor hand at such work, as no matter how bad a case may be, this is certainly one any ordinary writer would hare made a much belter hand of, without introducing personal abase. May I ask how it is that the editor of the morning paper seems for the last three months to make it his personal affair to write down continually, " L. Ehrenfried, a man owning' one-third of the property, &c., in the township, and one who has done a deal of private as also public good. Can it be in consequence of Mr Ehrenfried in his capacity of Mayor, having put a stop to the enormous amount paid the editor for advertising,' &c, and endeavoring thereby to reduce the Borough expenditure, which all must admit is a matter of ?ital importance to welfare, more particularly as the finances are in such a deplorable state at preseit. In Mr Ehvenfried's case, whether the ruling of Commissioners is right or wrong, and which matter r> ill be yet tested, is he to sifc down quietly and allow such a decision to take out of his pocket £2500, and thank the men who did it. I would like to know which of us of any standing in this town would put up with such a gross injustice. The house? from which the licenses , were withdrawn have been erected and fitted up as publichouses previous to there being any Commissioners, and under such act no such wholesale canceling of licenses could take place. A new Act is passed appoint* ing Commissioners to deal with the matter, who b lieve they c*n shot up any house they think fit. I don't believe that they have such authority under the Act; if they have there should be a oompenM-

tion clause if ifae withdrawal is considered a public good. Tho late .Resident Magistrale when Chairman of Commissioneis scid when a license bad b^en granted, and the house was properly conducted, and all requirements of the Aeh were complied with, that it was outside the duty of the Commissioners to Tefusa such license, to which all the Commissioners agreed. May I ask what has occurred since to make them take up the very opposite view. As a new Act is now before the house, and may become the law and greatly alter the Commissioners' authority as to such decisions, I thiuk it would have shown better judgment if they had withheld their decision until they had,seen how the new Act would affect their position as Commissioners, and so prevent a spirit of ill-feeling to crop up between them and a good citizen and ono who has a largo stake in the welfare of this place. The petition against the present Magistrate was printed in the Advertiser office. Of course the editor will say anything is printed in the way of business. This may be his argument, but I would be j very sorry to do so and then express the utmost indignation at such a thing being done, .* nd such petition being carried round lor signature.—Yours &c, Vindicatob.