Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 4, 12 March 1947, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be, clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

MAORIS AND LIQUOR

Sir—lt is indeed a matter of general satisfaction to note the continued efforts to deal with our liquor problem, as evidenced from time to time in your court reports, but with all due respect to the Court the liquor offences reported in / .your paper for Wednesday leave one wondering. Maoris charged, as the law puts it, ‘with assisting some person unknown in the commission of an offence by supplying them with liquor” are fined £2 and costs 35s (total £3 15s), while a pakeha supplier of liquor to Maoris, caught in the act, is fined £2 and costs 17s (total £2 17s). It is evident that the offence- of the pakeha caught redhanded in supplying Maoris is more serious and much more difficult to sheet home than the offence of the Maoris in “assisting,” and in other centres we understand that for such an offence it is usual to inflict a penalty that will act as a deterrant. Now that our Maori Wardens are empowered to do their full part in an effort to cltean up this unsavoury liquor problem would not salutary sentences be in order, and strengthen the hands of both Pakeha Police and Maori Wardens? When one realises the difficulty confronting both police and wardens in detecting these bootleggers one would expect them to be dealt with rigorously, but in this particular case the pakeha supplier actually pays less than these Maoris only charged with “assisting.” When one remembers the present (spending) value of our pound (stated by some to be as low as 6/8), then what is a couple of pounds, anyhow? But perhaps there were extenuating circumstances not revealed in your report? L

Yours etc.,

DRINK

INTEGRITY. .

Sir, —For some time past I have been tempted to answer some of the insipidly parsimonious letters 'appearing in your paper over the nom-de-plume of ‘lntegrity’ and such like, dealing with the drink problem. I don’t think I can be classed as a consistent drinker, but Mr Editor I do object to the thoughtless criticism ' hurled through the press by your correspondents at every person. who enjoys a ‘spot’ or two. In. fact, I venture to suggest that ‘lntegrity’ face up to realities and ad- -• # mit that every person who has ~ a. beer is not the low-down scum he insinuates. Perhaps a glass or two would do him the world of good. Probably broaden him out, and allow him to rub shoulders with hon-est-to-goodness . men’s men, whom he never knew existed. The long wail of self-righteousness which -he v loves to indulge in speaks of an obsession which can easily deteriorate into an unhealthy intolerance. Let us hope fate preserves him from that. If he wants to get at the gluttons, let him say so, and let him class with the overindulgent in " drink, the person who over-eats, who over-lusts, who is over-selfish, over-miserly, nver-sanctimonious, and over-critical. I have seen just as miserable examples of intolerance and miserliness in the so-call-ed respectable circles as exist amongst the worst types of drink addicts. All who over-indulge in any shape or form are fools. Let us criticise them all instead of sanctimoniously pointing the finger of accusation at (all who have a glass of ale. • ' Yours etc., ‘JOHN BULL.*