The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-03-11
RETAIL SPIRIT LICENSES.


The Privy Council took new and
important departure yesterday by
authorizing the issuance of retail
liquor licenses outside Honolulu. If
the discretionary power entrusted to
the Minister of the Interior be wisely
exercised, as we assume it will be, 40
exception can be taken to this course,
if it be once conceded that the sale of
liquor is to be permitted at all. Resi-
dents on the other islands have quite
as much right to drink, if they please,
as residents of Honolulu; and by rec
Ognizing this fact the Privy Council
placed itself in accord with enlight-
ened public opinion.
1t occurs to us, however, that
licenses should only issue to respon-
sible persons. If granted to irrespon-
sible parties great evils would result,
because the provisions of the liquor
law would be systematically ig-
nored and drunkenness encouraged.
Another point occurs to us, although
it is a matter of detail. We refer
to the authority granted to issue
two licenses for Wailuku. The
proposal raises the point whether
it would not be better to confine
the licenses for this part of Maui
to Kahului instead of licensing stores
in WaiIuku. The objection to grant
ing licenses for Waikiki is that it is
the center of q large sugar-planting
district, and that there is always
more or less danger of loss by firing the
cane-fields through careless smoking.
The risk from fire is decidedly greater
if plantation hands can easily procure
drink. moreover, it would be no
hardship upon residents in that sec
ton of Maui to go to Kahului for
their liquor. 1t is the shipping point
of this large district, is more central
than Wailuku, and has the advantage
of being cut off from the cane-fields
by broad belt of sand, thus lessening
the risk of accidental fire frem the
caTelessness of inebriates smoking.
This is putting an extreme case, of
course /; but it is point which will
commend itself to the planters. And
we have no doubt their wishes in the
matter will be respected by the Gov
eminent.
On the moral side of the question
something may be said in this con-
nection. It does not necessarily fol
low that drunkenness will be in
creased by the issuance of these out
side licenses. On the contrary, it
should have an opposite tendency, be-
cause a licensee would have a direct
interest in preventing the illicit sale
of intoxicants. A retail spirit license
costs 1000 a year, and this sum is
sufficient inducement to the person
holding it to see that as far as posi-
BILE unauthorized sales of spirits
should stop. Take for example the
island of Kauai. A person travelling
over this island may stop at eighteen
Chinese stores, at any one of which
spirits may be bought, although there
is no license to sell. Chinese likewise
peddIe all over the islands the vilest
kind of brandy, costing in France 10
cents a bottle, and specially manu-
featured for consumption by aborigi-
nal races. In addition to this, the
natives distil and drink okolehau,
which is one of the worst kinds of
ardent spirits ever made. For these
reasons we hold that drunkenness
will not be increased by the issuance
of outside licenses, and therefore the
argument against it on moral grounds
does not affect the. general question.
In addition, licensed houses will sell
q superior quality of spirits and charge
high price for it.
Looked at from social point of
view, a good deal might be said on
both sides of the question. What is
needed is to enforce the liquor law.
This would prevent excuses of any
kind. Prohibition does not always
prohibit, but if it did, it is not the
policy. Our business is to make the