The Port Chalmers Prohibition Era, 1902-1905.

Port Chalmers went "dry" in the early years of the 20th century.  It was the result of an electorate vote and that vote was, to a certain extent, the result of a monumental f@#k up.  Or, possibly, divine intervention.

A reference to an incident some years after the event first set me on the trail of this story - it was a thin clue indeed, but interesting enough for me to follow - and, well, I do like my beer.  And it was a very important beverage a century ago as now.  For one, it was a reliably healthy drink, at times, compared to tap water.  And it was the working man's reward for a day of toil before heading home.

It was the working man, as represented by members of a committee of wharfies and iron workers, that asked the publicans of Port Chalmers to offer a threepenny glass of beer.  The publicans refused.

A story is current in Dunedin to the effect that the carrying of No-licence in the Chalmers district was due to the refusal of the Port Chalmers hotelkeepers to concede "threepenny beers." It is said that the wharf laborers and iron workers of Port Chalmers recently appointed a committee to wait upon the hotelkeepers and ask then to sell beer at threepence a glass, as is done by some of the hotelkeepers in Dunedin. The deputation met with a point-blank refusal, and it is said that they thereupon expressed a determination to vote for Prohibition, and that they were told to go and do so. Of course it is impossible to say how the two bodies voted, but it is alleged that they carried out their threat, and that it was in consequence thereof, that No-licence was carried. It is at least significant that "the Port" gave a majority of 315 for No-licence, but even this was beaten in the other large centre of population, North-East Valley, where the majority was 387.  -Oamaru Mail, 1/12/1902.

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

There is no dearth of talk over the bolt from the blue which has fallen in the Chalmers electorate. In the estimation of some people, the hotels are the only thing worth living for and the trade is the one thing which has kept the community together. There is nothing but misery for Port Chalmers if the lawyers do not succeed in getting the decree of abolition averted somehow or other — so at least the sapient Mayor of the town implies. Mayors are always sapient on the question of liquor and finance, when they have had no experience of anything but a liquor-ridden community. A Times correspondent has been testing the feeling of the inhabitants on the subject of the approaching drought which the law and the people have precipitated — if one may be said to precipitate an absence of moisture. What an alarming change for a seaport, the habitues of whose hostelries were wont to float to bed of nights on the bosom of the delectable fluid. There is, however, compensation for the publicans. It does not come in the form of money; but in the solid satisfaction of knowing that the hundreds of men who voted no-licence just to spite the publicans because they would not give them threepenny drinks, go about with their parched tongues hanging put of their mouths. These men, who, of course, have too much pride and consistency to quench their thirst at the expense of that principle which they asserted at the ballot-box, will, if one may believe all one hears, suffer the torments of the lost. The Mayor declared that "the effect of carrying no-licence would be very disastrous as far as the Corporation was concerned." But what is the use of such a Corporation to any man? If such a thing can only be maintained by drink, then let the predicted disaster come. The local body politic must reduce the proportions of its artificially swollen resources, so as to adapt itself to the new circumstances produced by the cutting-off of improper revenue. The loss of revenue to the borough will, it was estimated by the Mayor, amount to £420, which it will be necessary to make up by an eightpenny rate. The total rating will then be 3s l0d in the pound. To the ordinary matter-of-fact, temperate mind this would not be very deadly, more especially as it would include rates for sanitation and a new water supply from which a goodly revenue is expected. There can, however, be no doubt that Port Chalmers is so situated that the abolition of hotels will have a greater effect upon its trade than it would upon that of an inland town. A large proportion of the money that is expended in drink at Port Chalmers comes from outside, and will not be spent there at all when the hotels are abolished, but will fall into the tills of the Dunedin hotelkeepers. Of course, outside this expenditure of foreign money there is a large local expenditure which will be devoted to legitimate purposes, to the advantage of trade. The Mayor seems to have entirely lost heart at the prospect of a drinkless town. "The closed premises," he complains, "would probably not be occupied for a long time, as there seemed no use to which they could be put." This seems to be a confession that the hotels have been nothing but drinking shops, and, if this be the case, they have no claim whatever to consideration of any kind. His Worship winds up his wail by saying: "If another poll were taken tomorrow, he did not believe that even reduction would be carried." He was quite safe in making such an assertion, for there could not, he knew, be another poll "to-morrow." But there will, in all human probability, be another in 1905, and we had all better now look forward to the possibilities of that time. It is reassuring to find that some brighter and more hopeful anticipations were expressed by those who do not depend upon intoxicants for their optimism and who are not, therefore, smitten by gloomy forebodings of impending evil. They appear to think that Port Chalmers may rise triumphant from the ordeal and that no one will be any the worse for it, but everybody all the better.  -Oamaru Mail, 4/12/1902.

Another tantalising clue came from the report of a meeting and details in a local Minister's thanksgiving meeting. Port Chalmers had seen some pre-election meetings on the subject of prohibition or temperance, but with few in attendance.  There could therefore be only one reason for the miraculous result: it must be divine influence.

There was also, however, the matter of a number of voting papers, which had been lost...

THE LOCAL OPTION POLL  (abridged)

The Rev. T. E. Thomas said they all gave thanks that evening to God for the results of the no-license poll, and those results must be distinctly regarded as an outcome of divine influence unon the people. Nothing but the divine spirit upon the community could ever have brought this about in Chalmers electorate. There had been very little in the way of demonstrations. They had held public meetings, but he did not think anyone could say they were well attended, or that much enthusiasm was displayed at them. A celebrated speaker had been invited to Port Chalmers, and a large audience was expected, but the speaker had to wait a quarter of an hour before the hall filled. The work had gone on, however, and God's blessing was upon it. He believed the movement might be traced very largely to the grace of God, inculcated by the Torrey-Alexander Mission. In Chalmers and other places the influence of God had been upon the minds of men, and had brought them to them a sense of their moral responsibility. God had ruled the poll in His own way, and he believed the result was God's answer to prayer. A few of God's people had met together on the eve of the election and earnestly prayed for no-licence and the salvation of the people and their children and friends. They might have prayed all night, but the leader had let them off at 1.30 a.m., and they left the issue with God, and so it came to pass that no-licence was carried. That was God's answer to the prayer. There was now a distinct three-fifths majority. He was wondering where that missing parcel of voting papers had gone to -- (A Voice: "Ask the publicans") — but the Prohibition party was not afraid of the result.— (Applause.) They knew the re-count would not tell against prohibition and probably it would tell the more for it. — (Applause and amens.) No one was inclined to grumble much if a prisoner escaped punishment by a technicality in the law, but when it came to a question of setting aside the will of the people on a technical point it was a different thing altogether, and he thought this setting aside was rather more than the magistrate could do, or the judge of the Supreme Court, either. It was very unlikely the judge would allow it. He saw no reason to doubt the integrity of the judges or magistrates, but even if they did not give the people their rights the matter would be carried to the highest court in therealm. — Applause.) 

The Rev. Dr Nicolson dealt with the subject of the publicans deprived of their livelihood. Were the No-licence party not justified in thinking there would be a brighter and happier life before publicans and their wives and families if no-license was earned? (Applause) This great blessing had come to the people through continual prayer; but they should not rest there, but be more earnest than ever. It had been a gratifying success. Thev did not indulge in any unseemly jubilation, but they rejoiced for the good of the community. They knew it was for the well-being of the people.

During the evening various thanksgiving hymns were sung, and the Moray Place Congregational Church Choir rendered Mozart's "Gloria," "The earth is full of Thy riches," and other numbers.   -Otago Daily Times, 13/12/1902.


Owing to the lost voting papers, the publicans and other citizens of Port Chalmers decided that were were grounds for an appeal against the reult of the vote.  Was there some further negotiation between publicans and workers?  We will most probably never know.

Yesterday Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., attended at the Magistrate's Court, Port Chalmers, in connection with the petition against the legality of the recent local option poll. Mr F. W. Platts represented the petitioners. As the decision of the Court of Appeal had not been received, his Worship adjourned all proceedings until Thursday, 23rd inst.  -Otago Daily Times, 3/4/1903.


The effect of the approaching prohibition in Port Chalmers was the subject of proceedings before the Assessment Court at Port Chalmers. The hotel proprietors lodged objections to the valuations placed on their respective properties on the grounds that if prohibition were carried the values would be materially reduced. It was agreed in the event of licenses being refused that the valuation should be reduced from a total yearly rateable sum of £931 to £3ll.   -Waikato Argus, 30/4/1903.

PORT CHALMERS LICENSES.

To the Editor

Sir. — Last Sunday, in the Presbyterian Church, Port Chalmers, the Rev. Mr. Tennent requested his congregation to meet at the church schoolroom the following evening to take steps to prevent the licensed victuallers of Chalmers district proceeding any further with their appeal. The rev. gentleman was very earnest in his appeal, and certainly endeavored to impress on the minds of his congregation that the publicans were acting, if not illegally, it least without any justification for their action. Without going into the merits of the case, I would ask if Mr Tennent would not be acting more in accordance with the principles of a Christian minister if he advocated a fair hearing for those opposed to him in this matter rather than by endeavoring to hold an advantage which has been gained by a law quibble? There are numbers in Port Chalmers alone, to my own knowledge, who, although voting for No-Licence in November last, are entirely opposed to the Prohibition party in this matter, and who condemn their action in trying to prevent what is claimed by every British subject — a fair hearing. — I am, etc., 

PRESBYTERIAN. May 20.   -Evening Star, 20/5/1903.

The Liquor Traffic.

(our parliamentary reporter) Wellington. This Day. As the Newtown trouble is sub judice, it is improbable that any legislation will be introduced affecting the position there, but it is on the cards that a bill will be brought down giving the Port Chalmers hotel keepers the right of appeal to the Privy Council, thus placing both electorates in the same position. 
[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington. This Day. A largely attended meeting of temperance sympathisers last evening was addressed by Messrs Taylor, Bedford, M's. H. R, and others. The meeting passed a resolution condemning the altitude of the Premier to publicans' deputations on the question of compensation, substitution of magistrates for elective licensing committees, etc.  -Greymouth Evening Star, 4/8/1903.

The Appeal by the Port Chalmers publicans was denied and the pubs stayed closed.

An aspect of the extending of the Vote to the women of New Zealand which is often forgotten is the connection between female suffrage interests and those of prohibition.  That connection was not forgotten by the Editor of the Temuka Leader.

There can be no doubt that a very complex situation has been created by the liquor position. It has been a mixed question always. It is a demoralising, dementing, maddening, intolerable political problem — a maze in which it seems impossible to get out of. On one side are the Prohibitionists, literally speaking, flinging brickbats at the head of the Premier because be will not jump at their bidding and do what they want. On the other side are the brewers and publicans with daggers drawn, and ready to plunge them into the heart of the Premier to the hilt unless he does everything necessary to stem the tide of prohibition. Between the two the Premier’s life is not a happy one, and really we cannot see how he can frame a Bill which can give satisfaction to any one. We must confess that we regard the position of the brewers and publicans as far more reasonable than that of the prohibitionists. The brewers and publicans are fighting for their properties and their means of living and certainly may be pardoned if, under the circumstances, they exhibit a certain degree of anxiety. The prohibitionists are fighting for nothing of a personal nature and their overweening arrogance is only the result of unexpected success. They are getting back into that frame of mind they were in after the enfranchisement of women. They thought then they would at once seize the reins and govern the country without further delay, but they got such a set back that made them sing smaller ever since. The success of the prohibition vote at the last election has re-inspired them and once more they are on the warpath and ready to fling mud at the Premier in the old-fashioned way. The chief charge against him is that he favors the liquor party and is opposed to the prohibitionists, but this is nothing new. It has been done for the last ten years, but is none the less a barefaced lie. If there is one class in the community that owes nothing whatsoever to the Premier it is the liquor party. He has done absolutely nothing for them except to help the prohibitionists to ruin them by means of local option and female franchise. Mr Seddon gave prohibitionists the means by which they are enabled to effect their purpose, and yet they have the unspeakable impudence to abuse him and accuse him of favoring the liquor party. Do the prohibitionists think that no one except themselves must be considered? Does anyone else think the Premier ought not to have heard or received the deputation of the liquor traffic, which waited on him recently? Let us now see what is it that aroused prohibitionists to the height of vehemence they have reached in abusing the Premier. In the electorate of Bruce prohibition was carried, but a petition was lodged and the Court declared the poll invalid. This would entitle the publicans to a renewal of their licenses, but a prohibition committee was elected and refused to grant them. That prohibition committee and its supporters are now petitioning Parliament to pass an Act to validate the election. The Rev. Mr Fraser, who is chairman of the committee, gave as a reason for validating the poll that he was afraid of being involved in legal proceedings, from which he wished to be protected. Serve him right if he is involved in such proceedings. Why did he not accept the inevitable and grant the licenses when he found the law against him? To validate a poll by an Act of Parliament, which a Court of Justice declared to be invalid would have been monstrous. The only thing was to amend the law, and that Mr Seddon proceeded to do at once. The invalidity of the poll occurred under the Regulations of Local Elections Act, and a Bill is before Parliament to remedy the defect. This is one of the grievances prohibitionists have against Mr Seddon, and a flimsy, contemptible excuse it is. If the publicans of Port Chalmers asked Parliament to pass an Act to give them fair play there would have been some sense in it. No-License was carried in Port Chalmers, but it is alleged that a parcel of voting papers were lost, and this would certainly constitute an excellent reason for upsetting the poll. The law requires that a petition must be lodged with the Stipendiary Magistrate for the district within a given time, but it so happened that the Magistrate who was administering justice at Port Chalmers was not the one who usually sat there, but one who was relieving him. To this Magistrate the petition was delivered, but the Supreme Court held that he was not entitled to receive or hear it, and thus the publicans never got a hearing at all. Now, if they asked for an Act to enable them to get this case heard it would have been reasonable. Considering that the parcel of votes were lost they ought to have had a trial, but they have not had it, and they have not gone to Parliament whining for a Validation Act.  -Temuka Leader, 27/8/1903.

A charming regurgitation reference was made during an "indignation meeting" in Dunedin, held by the Temperance Committee of the Council of Churches in Garrison Hall, Dowling Street.  It was a rare moment of light relief on a wordy evening's speechifying.

The Rev. W. Saunders seconded the motion, and said their minds had been somewhat taxed by the close reasoning of Mr Adams and he did not propose to touch upon the bill, but would give them a moment's relief by relating a story. He then proceeded to relate how a Highlander, when advised by a friend on shipboard to "let it go," replied, "Mon, I canna let it go; it's whisky." That little story, he said, was a parable. The Highlander was Mr Seddon, the sea was the unsettled state of parties caused by the unrest of the Licensing Bill, and the sympathetic friend was themselves, who were saying to the Premier,'"You had better let it go, Dick." — (Loud laughter, and applause.) If the Premier would not listen to their gentle arguments, then they must endeavour by some means to stir up the wind and make the sea a little rougher until Richard would "let it go." — (Renewed laughter.) Honestly, he was sorry for the Premier for having identified himself so closely with a measure that could not meet with the approval of the people. — ("Hear, hear.") He was sorry for him because he most willingly recognised that he was a statesman. He had placed upon the Statute Book of the colony laws that were unquestionably good. — (Applause.) He admired him for the way he had upheld the honour of the colony in standing by the Empire in the hour of trial. — ("Hear, hear.") He was sorry for the Premier because he admired his power in the House, and he regretted be had identified himself with a measure the country would condemn, because if Mr Seddon would not let this measure go the country would let Mr Seddon go. — (Loud applause.)  -Otago Daily Times, 3/11/1903.

Also in that month, the Rev. Tennent, reporting to the Council of Churches, gave some indication of the attitude of the Port's publicans.

— In speaking on the subject, the Rev. Mr Tennent said he had communicated with some dozen town and county clerks re workmen's clubs, but found nothing of the kind existed. Unless something of the kind were taken up in Port Chalmers it was felt that a certain section of the public would welcome the return of the open bar. It had been found none of the publicans were willing to let their hotels, clinging to the idea that before long license would be again triumphant in Port Chalmers. Perhaps now, however, they were in a better frame of mind. The cost of fitting out a kind of model young men's club, it had been found, would be very considerable, nor could the concern probably be made to pay.   -Otago Daily Times, 24/11/1903.

The result of an appeal against "No-License" in the North Island gave heart to the publicans.  If they were unable to open again, they might at least receive compensation for closure.

Satisfaction in Dunedin.

The Newtown appeal result has been received with great satisfaction at Dunedin. Legal opinion is that the Government will now have to step in and assist the Port Chalmers publicans who had their houses dosed, and who subsequently appealed on the ground that the ballot papers were missing. In the hope of the Newtown Appeal being favourable, the Bruce publicans have lodged aqplications with the Licensing Committee for renewals. The Port Chalmers publicans will apply to Parliament for compensation, and in the face of the Newtown decision there is reason to believe the applications will be favourably received.  -Manawatu Standard, 19/5/1904.

Meanwhile, according to Ian Church's "Port Chalmers and its People," Dunedin was where the men of the Port went for their beer.  The railway guards who joined the returning men on the last train home were not unhappy when - eventually - the Port's pubs opened again and referred to that last train as the "Royal Soaks' Express."  At a public meeting on the issue at Whanganui's Opera House, reference was made to the weekly "disorder."

"WHAT NO-LICENSE MEANS."

Mr. W.W. Collins on the Question.  (excerpt)

Mr. COLLINS then quoted from Rountree and Sherwell's book dealing with somewhat parallel conditions in the United States. "It is true," they tell us, "that No-license has been comparatively successful in some districts, but only where there are safety valves — where the people can get all they want." (Laughter.) Have we not seen this in New Zealand? Take Port Chalmers. At the last polling Port Chalmers voted No-license, but he knew the poll would not have been carried but for the fact that a lot of wharf labourers voted "to give the publicans a knock" because they would not sell fourpenny drinks! (Laughter.) And yet the No-license party claimed the vote in Port Chalmers as a great moral victory. They had read of the disorderly scenes disorderly scenes on the Saturday night trains to Port Chalmers. What was the cause? The men, deprived of their liquor during the week, mustered up their resolution on Saturday night, went to Dunedin, and tried to carry home a week's cargo — and couldn't do it. (Laughter.) These, he urged, were sham methods of carrying moral reform. A leading barrister of Kansas was next quoted by Mr Collins to show that liquor shops could be found all over the sttate by anyone except a "spotter." And the same condition prevailed in New Zealand.  -Wanganui Herald, 18/6/1904.

Reference was also made by the Evening Star to an affray or "squabble" in the vicinity of the Railway Station on a Saturday night.

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Messrs J. Arkle and W. Burnett J.P.s.) 

— Frederick Neiss was charged with assaulting John Bevan, a person assisting Constable Rochester while in the execution of his duty. — Accused pleaded not guilty. - The Sub-inspector explained that the constable arrested two other men named McDonald and Ward on the railway station last night, and had to get the assistance of Mr Bevan, the chief clerk of the railway. Accused deliberately went up to Mr Bevan and struck him with his fist and a stick. The railway people were subjected to a good deal of annoyance at the station on holidays and Saturday nights. Of course, there was a refreshment room there, and then again, on account of Prohibition at Port Chalmers a number of people from there found their way to the station at nights the worse for liquor. Severe steps would have to be taken to put down this kind of conduct. — Accused said that he did not interfere with anybody. He was brought into the row before he knew where he was. — The Bench said that it was of the utmost importance that people who were drunk and kicking up a row on holidays should be arrested. Accused would be fined 40s and costs (2s), or a month's imprisonment. 

John Docherty was charged with assaulting Frederick Gerrie. — Accused pleaded guilty. — The Sub-inspector stated that the offence took place in the vicinity of the station. The lad went up to another boy and struck him with his fist without the slightest provocation. — The Bench characterised it more of a boys' squabble, and fined accused 5s and costs (4s.) or twenty-four hours.

Breach of the Peace. — Hector McDonald and Thomas Ward pleaded guilty to committing a breach of the peace at the railway station. — The Sub-inspector stated that the two men, who were seamen, were arrested in connection with the disturbance on the station. There were a considerable number of people there at the time. —Fined 10s each, or forty-eight hours.

Obscene Language. — Thomas Toorish alias John Patrick Tewish was charged with committing a breach of the peace at the railway station, and also with using obscene, language at the same place. —The Sub-in-spector stated that accused was also in the squabble at the station. He was arrested, after which he made use of obscene language. This was not accused's first conviction for obscene language. Some time past he served a month for the same offencs. — Fined 10s, or forty-eight hours on the first charge, and 40s or a month on the second.   

Charles Craig pleaded guilty to making use of obscene language in High street. — The Sub-inspector said that this was a very bad case. Accused went into refreshment rooms, and refused to pay for what he had ordered. He then committed a disgusting offence and made use of obscene language. — Fined 20s, or fourteen days.  -Evening Star, 10/11/1903.

The "squabble" was not an isolated incident.

A disturbance took place at the Dunedin railway station on Saturday night, prior to the departure of the late trains for Port Chalmers and Mosgiel. A fight became general, and the police had to be reinforced. The constables and detectives, after a prolonged struggle, accompanied by considerable noise and much free fighting, arrested seventeen offenders, and locked them up, though a number got away. The scene was described as a veritable pandemonium. Youths in a more or less intoxicated state travelled in the trains, making themselves a general nuisance by vomiting on the floor, etc. The criminal class were also at work, one victim losing a considerable sum in notes.  -Manawatu Times, 11/5/1904.


The results of the No-license vote were debated in public and on paper.  Those in favour reported that more money was being spent on food for the family.  Those opposed reported that alcohol was being sold regardless of the law, as well as being consumed by the travellers of the "Royal Soaks' Express."

CRIME AND DRUNKENNESS IN PORT CHALMERS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I thank you for your courtesy in sending your issue with a letter from "One Who Knows Port Chalmers" criticising my figures as to crime, etc., at that place. His attack is so weak that I wonder at his troubling to write a letter to make so futile an assault upon the position shown in the records that I quoted. First, he ridicules me for including poverty cases, i.e., vagrancy and no visible means of support in the list of crime. Your correspondent must be very innocent of police procedure if he is not aware that these prosecutions are usually instituted — not against the innocent and deserving poor — but against undesirable characters whom the police wish to clear out of the place. But anyway it does not matter whether the cases were caused by real proverty or undesirables, they went down, hence No-license either lessens poverty or makes the place less attractive to undesirables. Your correspondent can take it whichever way he likes. All the Court cases he objects to have classed as crime, including truancy, offences against by-laws, noxious weeds cases, cattle wandering, etc., all are classed as criminal cases by the authorities. It certainly is absurd, and I always eliminate all manifest trivialities, but give the important transactions of the Court, whether strictly criminal or not. "One Who Knows, etc." ridicules my including truancy, and says, "Fancy No-license giving better attendance at the schools." Why, I have living opposite to me now a man who appears to drink all his money, his wife has to go out washing to keep the house together, their six children play truant continually and are a perfect pest to the whole neighbourhood. It does not require much imagination to see how No-license would give a better attendance at the schools. 

If, as "One Who knows" says, the drunks have gone to Dunedin and swelled our records, here, then, it is a grand testimony to Reduction, for here in Dunedin and suburbs, where we have had reduction twice, there were only 665 convictions for drunkenness last year, as against 1622 in Wellington and suburbs, and this in spite of the added total from Port Chalmers. If "One Who Knows" is right, prohibition orders also can be taken out in Port just as before, but, of course, would be made to apply in Dunedin. Several such were taken out in Gore to apply to Wakatipu licensing district. I never said Port Chalmers was a drunken place. I believe it was never very bad, except for an occasional row among sailors, of which rows there have been none since No-license, and not a single boat has been delayed an hour for want of a crew at sailing time. The captain of the ship Essex and many others have given testimony to the great improvement. 

"One Who Knows " says my arguments will not gull the business men of the Port. Seeing that I spent two days there lately and interviewed most of the business people I can claim to know all about it. The "Otago Daily Times" reporter somehow happened to strike those business people that had a down on No-license. For instance, his principal interview was with an ex-hotelkeeper. I called on the rest, and this is what they said:— Mr Emerson and another grocer - Business good, quite satisfied; coal merchant — No-license made no difference; grocer and baker — Didn't vote No-license, but quite satisfied; large general business, probably largest in the Port — Business improved; Mr Powell, fruit merchant, said — Business very good, and of opinion that if the Port people would only speak frankly and without prejudice none had reason to complain; Mr D. M. Mawson, agent Taieri and Peninsula butter factory said — Sales of butter at least as good, he thought better if anything. This is the 1s a pound butter, too, don't forget that; Mr W. Campbell, junr, local deputy I.O.G.T., said, as regards that late train, the "pro-pub" party's sheet anchor, "I have travelled to Dunedin for years about four nights a week, and always come back on Saturday on that late train. It is no worse now than it used to be before No-license. Just the same crowd get drunk now that always used to get drunk, in fact the last two months it has been a great deal better, etc." I can assure you, Sir, that Port Chalmers under prohibition, near the city as it is, will well stand comparison with its former state under license. — I am, etc

G. BERNARD NICHOLLS, Otago Agent New Zealand Alliance. Dunedin, September 15.  -Star, 17/9/1903.

As can be imagined, where there was a demand there was a supply.  A number of police raids were carried out in the port and a number court appearances followed.  In the following, it was the law itself which was questioned as part of Mr A C Hanlon's defence.

AN EXTENSIVE SEIZURE

THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE A. NEILL.

At the Police Court this morning, before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., George A. Neill, of Port Chalmers, boarding-house keeper, was charged with, on the 19th November, keeping certain liquor for sale in a No-license district. Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared to prosecute, and Mr A. D. Hanlon to defend.

Mr Fraser explained that on the 19th November last the premises of the defendant at Port Chalmers were raided by the police under warrant, and there was a very extensive seizure of liquor made. In Mrs Neill’s bedroom the police found two bottles, one containing sherry and another containing gin. In the cellar there were two ten-gallon kegs of McGavin’s beer in sacks, one demijohn with a little rum left in it, two kegs of wine (alcoholic), one case containing thirteen bottles of champagne and two bottles of wine. In the bar there were two full decanters of rum, two decanters quarter-full of rum, one ten-gallon keg of McGavin’s beer about three-parts full, tapped and ready to be drawn at any time. They also found a demijohn containing between a pint and quart of whisky. There was also six tumblers in the bar, and some non-alcoholic liquor as well. Empty bottles, which had recently contained liquor, were found in the sitting room, and the same in a cupboard under the stairs. Sundry beer kegs were also found. The defendant, it would be seen, had taken pains to conceal the identity of the casks by drawing sacks over the tops of them. It would be proved that the beer was taken down from McGavins Brewery, the kegs being covered with sacks. The object was obviously to conceal the identity of the kegs. The empties were sent by Neill to McGavin by the same carter who took the beer to Port Chalmers. The identity of the empties was also concealed by means of sacks, showing a system of illicitly conveying liquor from a place outside a district to a place within a no-license district. The explanation given by the defendant to the police was something to the effect that some of the liquor — namely, the champagne — had been old stock. He formerly had had a license. He further said that the other liquor had been obtained by him with a view to celebrating the decision of the Privy Council, which he anticipated would be in favor of the licensees. The amending Act curiously came into force on the 8th November, the date that Neill got the liquor. After that date no person in Port Chalmers could get liquor without the clerk of the court being duly notified. It was more likely that the defendant wanted to get in his stock before the police were informed by statute that he was getting four ten-gallon kegs of beer. 

Evidence was given by James Weir (retumnig officer for the Chalmers licensing district), James Pickard (coal merchant), William Madigan (carter), Sergeant Guerin, Constable Bessworth, and Constable Hyland (who said that he saw two cart loads of dandelion ale taken to Neill’s about twelve months ago).

Mr Fraser said that there was some temperance liquor found on the premises — about two dozen bottles.

Mr Hanlon said that his first point was that Prohibition had not been duly determined in Chalmers. The elecctors had not duly determined that no license should be granted in the district. He admitted that in the meantime the matter was sub judice but if the result of the appeal before the Privy Council was what he anticipated, and if a conviction was recorded in this case, he wanted to be in the position to move in the matter, so he (counsel) formally raised the point now — that there had been no due determination that no license should be granted in the district. The whole question, apart from the point he had raised, was whether His Worship Was satisfied that Neill had kept that liquor there for the purpose of sale. He would show that with the exception of the beer all the other liquors had been in the house for a lengthened period. For instance, the champagne was there before the defendant went into the house, and as far as the claret was concerned it was put in the place in March, 1903, before the licenses were abolished. The rum was rum that was damaged, and it had been lying there undergoing some process for its purification. The case, therefore, resolved itself into a pure question in regard to the beer. There was no denying that the beer was there, but was His Worship going to say because that quantity of liquor was found there he was going to convict the defendant, more especially when there was no evidence of a sale. The strongest circumstance in favor of the defendant was that the police had failed to find any evidence of a sale. They were trying to get a conviction upon the mere fact that a person had liquor in his possession. They had not the slightest evidence of a sale. It was a house in which there were two billiard tables, and, of course, a large number of people went in and out of the place. For many months past the defendant had been going to town daily in connection with a newspaper business. The evidence in fact, showed that the police had to wait until Neill, who had the keys, returned from Dunedin before they could get into the bar and the cellar. He (counsel) would show that, during the eighteen months the house had been closed the dependant had had something like 100 gallons - that was, ten ten-gallon kegs - of beer brought to the place, so that if he were disposing of the liquor he had a little over a pint per day to dispose of. If Neill chose to entertain his friends, why should he not do so? Another fact that spoke in the defendant's favor was that ten months ago the police certified that he was a fit person to hold a publican’s license.

The defendant, cross-examined, said that there were two kegs to the bar. He did not know where the other one was. Mrs Neill had it. If a customer came in for dandelion beer or stout he would take him into the bar and give it to him. He would deny that he sold beer last night. He declined to answer whether he had sold any beer since he lost his license. He had already given a very frank account of everything. He believed the sacks were already on the barrels when they were taken away from his place to the brewery. He gave the order the day previous to getting the beer. He would swear that he had not got more than fourteen ten-gallon kegs of beer since losing his license. He was quite sure he had not got more than twenty. He bought the demijohn, with a little whisky in it, in Dunedin. He bought the bottle of whisky produced at the Dunedin railway station. He had no recollection of buying a case of whisky from Mackerras and Hazlett or from Wilson and Co. in November. He remembered being on the Government steamer Nile on the 10th of November, and taking down a case of whisky to Port by the steamer from Sooullar and Co. Different people got bottles of it.

Mt Fraser: That will be the last case of whisky the Nile will carry for some time.

Further cross-examined, witness said that Scoullar and Co. had not constantly snpplied him with whisky since he lost his license. He did not suppose that he had had more than four gallons from Scoullar and Co. the whole time.

John Thomson, formerly residing at Port Chalmers, said that he valued the stock when Neill went into the house. He valued it again in June, 1903. The champagne had been in the house since 1901. When he valued there was claret and damaged rum in the house. 

Francis Meenan, commercial traveller was about to be asked if he sold claret to Neill, when His Worship remarked that he did not think it was necessary to go into that. The.champagne and claret, were part of the old stock. 

Mr Hanlon: Well, that, is the defendant’s case. 

His Worship said that the evidence of the defendant was not satisfactory. He gave it in a hesitating and prevaricating manner. His Worship decided to convict. 

Mr Hanlon asked that, in view of the fact that the defendant had borne a good character and that it was the first prosecution of the kind in the district, a small fine should be inflicted.

A fine of £5 and costs was indicted.  -Evening Star, 8/12/1904.

The police on Saturday night made a search of Furk's Marine Boarding-house at Port Chalmers, where they found a quantity of whisky and a number of empty bottles, supposed to have contained the same liquor quite recently. A prosecution will probably follow.   -Otago Witness, 18/1/1905.


Finally, after nearly two and a half years, the Privy Council's ruling overturned those of the lower courts.

PORT CHALMERS LICENSING APPEAL. 
[By electric teleqbaph.] [per press association.] 

THE PUBLICANS' APPEAL UPHELD. 
DUNEDIN, This Day. A private cable reports the success of trades' appeal in the the Port Chalmers licensing case.   -Greymouth Evening Star, 15/5/1905.


News and Notes

The effect of the Privy Council's decision in the Port Chalmers licensing appeal cases is to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of New Zealand, and Mr Graham's reading of the Act is confirmed. The result is that Mr Graham, as Stipendiary Magistrate of Chalmers, is entitled to hear the petition and give his decision as to whether the irregularities in the conduct of the election were such as to invalidate the poll.  If he finds them to have been so then the Chalmers hotelkeepers will be entitled to get their licenses. If not, the verdict of the Privy Council will be of no avail to them. The Right Hon. R. B. Haldane, K.C., appeared before the Privy Council for the appellant. Defendant was not represented.  -Marlborough Express, 19/5/1905.

Port Chalmers Licensing Case

(PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

DUNEDIN, July 2. The petition of publicans in the Port Chalmers district, to have the no license poll upset on the ground of irregularities, has been upheld. The Port Chalmers electorate therefore goes back to former conditions necessitating a three fifths majority at the coming poll to carry no license. It is expected the hotels will all be open by the end of the week.  -Grey River Argus, 6/7/1905.

The local newspapers of August, 1905, carried a flurry of notices announcing intention to obtain licenses from the next meeting of the Licensing Committee at the local courthouse.  Thirteen applications were made to the Committee - from Ravensbourne, Normanby, Shiel Hill and Portobello as well as from Port Chalmers - and all applications but one were allowed.

In all, 13 applications for hotel licences came before the Chalmers Licensing Committee yesterday, and all of these were granted with the exception of that in respect to the Botanical Gardens Hotel, North-East Valley, which was adjourned pending some negotiations for purchase. The Port Chalmers publicans had obviously prepared themselves against the occasion, and lost no time in resuming their bar trade. The habitual quietness of the township can hardly be said to have been disturbed.  -Otago Daily Times, 3/8/1905.

Port Chalmers has remained a town in which the thirsty traveller or local can obtain a refreshing fermented beverage since that day.  But call for the "threepenny beer" and the ensuing events was not forgotten.  And it was the following letter from 1907 which first alerted this writer to the initial event.

Now, why are we consumers paying through the nose to build up these fat publicans and brewers. No wonder that fabulous prices are paid for goodwills of hotels, and the public wonder why. You have only to look at these figures and they will tell you. I think it is time we woke up and said there shall be a reduction in the price of our national beverage. Look at Port Chalmers, what the working man did. They said, "we want a reduction," the publican said "No," and what did the workers do? Well, you know the rest. They shut 'em up. About two years ago an advertisement appeared in one of our local papers — "Wanted, an experienced brewer, must be a qualified chemist. Apply, etc." Do we want chemical beer, or do we want what we are paying through the nose for, viz., malt and hops? Perhaps I may say I am not a prohibitionist, and as long as I can get the nearest approach to our old English malt and hops at a fair price, I will let ye bungs rest, but if not I am prepared to show the general public something which will open their eyes. Apologising, for intruding on your valuable space,— I am, COCULOS INDIGOS, Wellington, October 4, 1907.  -NZ Truth 12/10/1907.