MR LYSNAR AND MR PATERSON

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 574, 19 November 1902, Page 3

MR LYSNAR AND MR PATERSON

(To the Editor of the Times). Sir,—l am deeply thankful that Mr Lysnai: lias done me the honor of

pouring out the. vials .of.liis wrath oil my devoted head. 1 really regard it as" a matter to lie devoutly thankful for that lie has classed me in his condemnation with nut a few clergymen of his own Church whom I respect and honor and am proud to call brethren. Blame from Mr Lysnar I regard as a

high compliment, and will in future wear it as a badge of honor. In his address at Waereiiga-a-hika, Mr Lysnar calls me either a fool or a liar.

Well, Mr Editor, I suppose I have been called a fool before ; Hut I have had to come to Gisborne, and to grow Into an old man, to lie called a liar. Mr. Lysnar is welcome to any kudos ho ma" acquire from his charge ; hut, if 1 know anything of the people of Gisborne, 1 don’t think it will help his cause very much on the .election day. In my letters and my addresses, 1 have always .said that when the vote was taken in the Clulha electorate in favor of Prohibition, it was carried by a large majority. But voting in the electorate was at first in sections or districts ; and in every district when the vote was taken it was carried by a largo majority. Mr Lysnar admits that iu 189-1 Prohibition was carried in tiie Clutlia, accounting fo-r it through a re-arrangement of -boundaries ; and 1 need not tell Mr Lysnar that it must have been by a three-fifths majority, and surely that- may fairly he called a large majority. In 189(1, one hotel was, left in a corner of the electorate, hut unless I am very much mistaken Pronibition reigned everywhere else. But in that year there was a large majority for “No License,” the figures being: For continuance, 1618 ; no license, 1989. In 1899, the votes cast for continuance wero 1393 ; for no license, 3170. You see, Mr Editor, how the Temperance, or rather 11 No License ” sentiment had grown during the three years, when, wil-h the exception of the one public-house, there had been Prohibition through the whole electorate. The people had proved the benefits of the “ No License ” regime, and their vote increased accordingly. Now, surely, I was justified in saying that every time the “no license” vote was taken in the electorate it was carried -by a large majority ? Dir Lysnar says that Prohibition was only carried by a majority of seven over tho three-fifths majority. Ho is quite right. But suppose we put the two side by side, it wears a somewhat different complexion —for continuance 1393, for no license 2170. Mr Lysnar explains this away by saying that the publicans joined hands- with the prohibitionists to Help to vote oat the one hotel, and in. this way no-license was carried. Mr Lysnar “ says’” that, but will Mr Lysnar prove it ? 1 want something else besides his ipso dixit, and unless he can advance proof he has no right to make this statement. A gentleman told me the other day, and lie is willing to make a declaration before the Magistrate iu proof, that when Mr Lysnar •returned from Clutlia he said : “ lj ie people were so disgusted with the working of the no-license law that If cense would lie carried by a large majority ” This, Mr Editor, does not look very like the publicans joining bands with the prohibitionists : in fact the combination is so unlikely that the great majority of people will desire more proof than Dir Lysnar s word, valuable and weighty and trustworthy as that may he.—l am, etc., JAMES G... PATERSON.