"INEBRIATES INSTITUTIONS ACT, I898."

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume II, Issue 7, 13 June 1899, Page 2

"INEBRIATES INSTITUTIONS ACT, I 898."

(To the editor.) Sir, — I am not to be drawn into any side issues. You said in your article that the British Parliament last year passed an Inebiiites Act which you ," woulil lv glswl to see copied by our ,New Zealand Legislature."' I showed qnite clearly that you appeared to be unawiufe of the fact that what 1 believe to be a better measure Was adopted by our PaA^laraent last s^?°ion, and only lequires an Qrdei'-in-Co'uneil to bung it into ioi'ce. That Act rovers all the ground the Butish Act does and mote. Li the 1 " Lunatics Act, 1882," souie provision is made in sections -ii, 43 and substihsequent, sections' for dealing wbh habitual dru>ikaids. These aeoUons are not '• permissive)" as : j-ou U3e the term, Cor the law is now in force, and is of the liatuie dosonbed by ;fou, as only an ineivute or liis friends can take advantage 'ot it, which* is seldom done; the necessaiy piqcepdmgs befo're a Sup'l'eaie Oouft judge being dillietilt and ci4»Uy» Theesstionsin " The Lunatics Aci, 1882,'' and the Act of iaaii year, are, I beiiove, our only legis>lation^ deahnp; with the detention of 'ltikbitual drunkards torfcurativeti-ea.tment. Thereloio, oar only/ rt ,penaissive " legis!a,i tipn is that of iaa't yWt^artd'iB 'exactly ,in '.th^savue.poijjiiion iavi legard"to1 egard"to NeV ' Z(ja-"

land, as you say the Biifci,sh Act ih regard to Scotland. — Ltrai, etc., ■ Thos. Brown. ' [The New Zea^nd Act'-(IS9S) v ia permissive yetj in so far' as no O«ler-in Goun-od-Oias been made* It is practically . 'jvSrioissive in that Mends have to take the initiative, tha4Js ; the law on its own account does not step in and deal with such offendeis. By the, English Art th.c cnniinai if he, drinks to excess is already before the Couit, and the .haie being caught is then cooked. We summed up « ail the Acts in one sentence us " permissive," which is appioximately concct, though Mr Brown is not w-ronc if he insists on a perfectly acouiate definition of the word. He made too large an assumpMon, however, when he suggested we did not know the Act. — Ed. W.A.]