THE LICENSING DISPUTE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1351, 26 February 1881, Page 2

THE LICENSING DISPUTE.

I mentioned in my last that the local temperance league had "tucked -up ite sleeves'' and prepared to do battle against an application made'by the proprietor of the National Hotel '*' (for authority to open a second but. -The ' facts of the 1 case prove how zeal, even in tho case of sober minded people/w ill out run discretion. < Acting on the repreof hi* boarders, ami o%ey

residents and frequenter* of the establishment, Mr Raynea has been induced to take the step proposed. The arguments used, — and as a resident of the establishment, I am in a position to vouch for their bonajidct— is that these parties are put to inconvenience in procuring such refreshments as they may feel disposed to partake of. Under existing arrangements these" can only be had at the bar or taproom adjoining the bar, the he use being 1 built so that the last-named portions are practically isolated from the rest. Naturally enough, the patties in question object to herd with the "swiping lot" usually congregated at public-house bars, aud the proposal was made iv the hope that the necessity would thereby be obviated. Application to the Licensing Bench for the purpose was altogether unnecessary, as the second bar will bo situated under the same roof as tho other. Mr Raynes, however, thought it would only be doing the Commissioners justice to notify them of his intention. I give tho members of the Temperance League every credit for good intention, but, iv common with many others similarly situated, I object to their assuming the reins of destiny — dictating what provision shall or ehall not be made for the domestic convenience and comfort of persons over whom they have no control, and with whom they can have very little in common. Ihavoused the pronoun "I" simply to illustrate the premises, and not in respect of any individual interest I have got in the question. At present there are not fewer than thirty boarders in the house, and I am in a position to say they are, Apne and all, imbued with the sentiments expressed above. The matter has, of course, another and a wider significance. It opens up h question as to the propriety of this or any other belf-constitutcd organisation inteifering with subjects amply provided for by legislative enactment. Years ago, when the notorious Forbes Mackenzie Act was first introduced into Scotland, borne of these combinations organised themselves into a kind of surveillance committee, and for a time dogged the footsteps of the publican with the utmost pertinacity. Eventnally their interference was lesented by the publicans, resulting in a dispute brought on before the Supreme Court. Tho Loids of Council and Session held that such interference was altogether unjustifiable, and mulcted tho offenders in heavy penalties. Then, again, we have the "ladies'" temperance crusade in Philadelphia— another case in point. In that instance, bands of enthusiastic females went about from one hotel to another, chanting hymns and offering up extemporaneous prayerg. The thing became a nuisance, and the publicans bundled some of them into the gutter. The authorities held the publican was justified in what he did. The local league has not, of course, gone to either of these extremes, but the principle is pretty much the same. All the authorities on the point go to prove that it is the duty of the Commissioners to discountenance such proceedings, and to be guided in their determination of licenses solely by constitutional practice.