THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1904

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume IV, Issue 1082, 1 September 1904, Page 2

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1904

Excepting in one or two particulars the provisions of the Licensing Bill introduced by the Premier on Tuesday are practically the same as those foreshadowed by himself in the course of platform speeches and in replies to deputations, and which have already been summarised in the columns of the Telegraph. There is no Bill in a Parliamentary category that is moro unlikely to please ovorybody than a Licensing Bill, ant) tho statesman who could draft something that would cause a clasping of the hands of" the trade" and the prohibitionists would deserve a statue in gold. We do not say that the Premier has done this, but he has dono pretty well all which those who are not extremists would expect him to do. An unexpected clause is the one that confines the voting at the licensing poll to tho straight out issue of" license" or "no license," "Reduction " has been removed, and if the clause is cariied voters will look in vain on the voting papers for the word. The removal of the" reduction " issue ought not to be strongly opposed. In districts where reduction has been carried the hotels ordered to be closod have been houses mostly that might have been excelled in architecture and accommodation, and the closing of which has not been felt severely by the community. But recently—we are speaking now of northern Now Zealand—tho hotels are admitted to be not only few enough in number wluii accommodation for tho public is considered, but to bo well conducted and in all other ways n. credit to tho Colony. In view of this it seems to be right that the issue should be one of hotels or no hotels only. Reduction means simply the closing of hotels in a given district at considerable loss to tho owners, and the consequent reaping of largo extra profits by the ones remaining open, with no decrease in the consumption of liquor in the given district. Reduction has had its day. The issue ought now to be something more definite, and "license" or "no license"isj the one that ought tobi eittled,

Another clause that wag unexpected is the one providing for a poll 011 the question of State control of the traffic. If the clause is passed, and the colony votes State control, it will take a good round Bum to buy the hotels out, This means a loan, and at the current price of money we can hardly think the proposal will be taken seriously, and our surprise will not be great if the clause is dropped—for a while, any way. It is just possible that if tho colony voted control by the State the brewers and publicans would make a present to the State of the breweries and hotels, but then again it is possible they would not, and the latter is the possibility the State would have to face. Tho famous clause 'J is in evidence, It prohibits thej use of liquor in a no-license district except for medical, scientific, and manufacturing purposes. With a clause like this an impecunious M,D. could go to a nolicense district and prescribe alcohol ad lib. He would have no lack of patients needing medical comforts. The no-license district would also be half full of enthusiastic" scientists" and " manufactuters," and each party would of course need alcohol 1 for the bonefit of tho business. A good feature of the Bill is the attempt to free as much as possible any publican from the" tied" system, but the fate of the "Tied House Bill" introduced again and again by the Hon. Mr Rigg in tho Legislative Council renders it problematical if the tied house clause will pass that Chamber. It is pleasing to find that liquor is not to bo sold at the Cook Islands. This is probably the outcome of representations made recently by the Cook Island natives, who urged in the interests of their own preservation that liquor should be kept from the islands, The Bill as a whole is a very good effort to satisfy the moderates of the liquor and temperance parties. To attempt to satisfy extremists of both sides would bo madness.