INCREASE OF HOTELS.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 101, 8 May 1901, Page 3

INCREASE OF HOTELS.

(To the Editor of Times.) Sir,— The reply of the Bov. B. F. Bothwell to my remarks with regard to tho increase of hotels in Gisborne is truly characteristic of the party to which that gentleman belongs. Bccauso I happen to differ with him upon this question he assumes that I am an interested party. Nay, he goes further than that, and lets his Christian feelings run away with him to the extent of accusing me of being an individual whose only occupation is “ that of propping up walls and offering sound advice to vacancy.” But let me remind him that the greatest churchmen aro not always the wisest of men, and that possibly there are some members of the community endowed with as much intelligence as he himself possesses. My modesty forbids mo to give my name at present, but I will promise this to the rev. gentleman, who is evidently anxious of becoming known. lam prepared to meet him any evening he likes, and discuss with him the advantages of freetrade in tho liquor business over the present state of affairs, leaving aside the question of prohibition altogether. Or, perhaps, as I am very seldom in town, lie might shortly state his views on the question, and tell the public how it .is that he and his party are prepared to fight tooth-and-nail to keep in existence and bolster up a monopoly which is standing in the way of legitimate enterprise and freetrade. I know of one gentleman who is prepared to put £s,ooo'into a building, if only he can get a license for it, and surely even tho Bov. Both well must admit that such a house is badly needed in Gisborne. —I j etc*, Iconoclast.

v To the Editor of the Times.) Sir, —In Monday morning's issue of the Times I noticed two letters appearing on the question of granting a license for an extra public house in the town. One letter was favourable to the granting of the license, and the other was directly opposed to such being done. Now, Sir, I would like to ask under what Act the application is made. Does the applicant not know that the verdict of the people at the last licensing poll was distinctly against an increase of ? It i s quite true that the quesKfm of an increase of licenses was not submitted to the poll, but the voting on the questions submitted showed that a majority of the people were in favour of abolishing public houses altogether, though the majority was" not sufficient fo carry out its desire. It appears to me, Sir, that the applicant is acting directly in opposition to the will of the people expressed at the poll, and I would like to see the public take a firm stand on the question and instruct the committee to refuse the application in no uncertain language,—l am, etc., Coi«D Tea. '