EDITORIAL
It has often been asserted by us, by the miners, and in fact by every unprejudiced person on the goldfield, that the administration of the law in our police court is capable of very great improvement. The grounds for this general complaint has received a further confirmation by the proceedings connected with the sly-grog prosecutions that have filled the Police Court with a large audience almost daily during the past week, and afforded them lessons in human frailty that will not be readily forgotten.
The offence of sly grog selling is one that, despite all legislation, exists in every part of the Colony. It exists the in the metropolis, in the most obscure of pastoral locality, and flourishes luxuriantly on goldfields. It has defied the most ingenious efforts of the Parliament and Police to "wipe it out." It seems that it is an offensive against the revenue laws that, like dummying under the Land Act, cannot be eradicated. Such being its peculiarities, it may not be quite a waste of time if we briefly consider the effect that enforcing the provisions of the Publican's Act has upon the public morality, and also whether these so called prosecution's are calculated to suppress the offence and purge our social life. We have watched the development of sly grog selling on the goldfields in all it various phases, and unhesitatingly assert that the present mode is not in any way calculated to "prevent the growth of this social evil."
Sly grog selling on the goldfields differs in many points from the same trade in townships. When a rush takes place to some uninhabited locality where no licensed vendors of grog have a "local habitation or a name", there comes with the influx of miners the camp followers or providers who supply their many wants. One of the wants of the horny-handed sons of toil is strong drink. The cumbrous character of our revenue laws prevent licenses for the retail of fermented and spirituous liquors being obtained promptly. A pretentious building providing specified accommodation has first to be erected, then a month's notice has to be given, then attendance at a Court of Petty Sessions is compulsory, and at last all the forms are gone through and the applicant is duly authorised to sell grog by paying the annual licence fee of £30.
Now why all this delay should occur in obtaining a publicans licence on a goldfield has ever appeared to us absurd. It practically holds out inducements for the creation and support of unlicensed vendors of alcohol. Those who love strong drink, either as a vice or a social custom will not wait until licensed houses are in existence for its sale, but will drink it and pay for it wherever they can obtain it. It is thus "shanties" are erected and fostered. When licensed houses become prolific in numbers, they do not, to any material extent, injure the shanty, because a connection having been made, the customers of the unlicensed vendor cling to their old love, despite the attractions of the licensed rival. If some ready mode existed by which spirit licenses at a reduced fee - say £15 , could be issued on a new goldfield, after a short notice of application, say one week, and by which the necessity for providing hotel accommodation could be extended for, say 6 months, the old offence of sly grog selling would become reduced to a minimum, and that public benefit be conferred by bringing the places under the surveillance of the Police. It is the delay, the costly building, and the high licence fee that creates shanties, and such being the case - which no experience person will deny - the law to be effective should be adapted to these proven facts. We care not how severe the punishment may be for sly grog selling, it will, under the present mode of licensing houses, exist, in spite of Police, informants, and temperance loving justices.
The manner in which the recent batch of sly grog prosecutions has been conducted was deserving of the severest condemnation. The guilt of the unfortunate defendant was considered as a matter of course, by all in anyway, concerned in the administration of the law. The witnesses and the defendants, no matter how numerous or respectable, were disbelieved, and that of two wretched bipeds, who had a pecuniary interests in swearing strongly and positively, was accepted as gospel truth. It is something repulsive to our ideas of holding the scales of Justice evenly, that persons charged with keeping a shanty, known to be such by repute, to the Police, and patronised as such by them, is allowed to exist for months, and then suddenly are summoned for the unauthorised vendors of spirit. We denounce most emphatically such conduct, as an outraged upon decency and morality. When these offenders appear before the Bench they are insulted, insinuations are heaped upon them freely, their witnesses are called perverts of the truth, and most unfeeling remarks are made upon their persons, vocation, and habits. One sapient justice had the ignorant audacity to sit upon the judgment seat and say "that he had made up his mind to fine them all," and while not a total abstainer himself, preached what he does not practice. We protest in the name of justice against such persons being privileged to fine and confine helpless women, without giving their cases serious and impartial consideration. If two common informants, who have a direct interest in proving their charge, are to be believed before 6 witnesses for the defence, we say that it is contrary to British Law, to common sense, and universal justice. We will take the case of the woman Sarah Walker, whose defence did, in the mind of any unprejudiced hearer, fully rebut the informants evidence, yet she was fined £30 and costs. No wonder the very learned gentleman - Dr Belinfante - who appeared for her, and did his duty ably and eloquently should explain, "Your Worships, I'll not call witnesses in these cases any more, you may fine them and I will appeal." It is painful to hear such strong language uttered by a professional gentleman, who has been taught to look up to the administrators of the law with respect. His rebuke ought to be keenly felt by those to whom it was addressed; at all events, we earnestly hope it will not be forgotten. If the Police Magistrate, whom we believe to be an honest, conscientious gentleman, would cast aside his diffidence and assume his true position on the Bench, and make everyone, from his brother justices to the lowest creature in the court - the sly grog informer - feel that he is Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates. There would be none of the many mutterings heard that now prevail. Unless a change in the administration of the law is not soon inaugurated, we feel certain that there will be an outburst of the pent-up feelings of the aggrieved that will be long remembered.
The offence of sly grog selling is one that should not exist; nor would it with proper legislation. We have no sympathy with the offenders, who are as a body no better or no worse than their neighbours. If the licensed publican has to spend some hundreds in providing suitable hotel accommodation, pay a heavy licence fee, and can only sell within certain hours of the day, he should be adequately protected from the competition of sly grog vendors, who are under no such control or expense. But we demanded that when these offenders are summoned to a police court, they should not be dealt with in an exceptional manner. The law of evidence should be adhered to strictly; their quilt should not be assume, nor their conviction be decided upon before their evidence is heard. It is the non-observance of these judicial rules that creates for them a morbid popular sympathy, and dares them to again pursue their unauthorised occupation. We blame a lax police supervision for the development that sly grog selling has assumed on this goldfield.
Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 49, 20 January 1872






