MR. BARRY’S STATEMENTS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2236, 31 October 1908, Page 7

MR. BARRY’S STATEMENTS

[To the Editor.]

-Sir, —Mr Barry in his letter this morning has not disproved my statement, but on tho contrary has emphasised them more fully. There was no abuse in my letter and a glance over his will' show where the abuse comes in which evidently he has to indulge in for want of argument. My whole statement was a statement of fact, and any other business carrying the same record as the liquor business would merit similar censure. Mr Barry’s verbosity does not prove anything, but his comparisons do, and if anyone ohoose to look into them it -would not prove very flattering to the liquor trade,.as the court records of our daily papers are evidence of this; but I am sure there are few lawyers blit would resent being classed in the same category, let alone the parsons. Put them in the scales together and see who has the cleanest record. The Jaw spells intelligence and justice, the liquor, crime and degredation. The lawyer is a pleader of equity—the publican a drunkardmaker and an impovrisher of the people-* - The - church spells goodwill to all mankind —the pub, dissipation and disaster. Sharp contrasts these, hut nevertheless true, and Mr Barry would do well to / remember that it is only the liquor business that is lip for judgment of the people and not others, and why only the liquor business ? Because tho statements made in my previous letter are true, and therefore the law of the country grants to the people the right of saying whether they will tolerate further the degradation the trade entails upon the country. Mr Barry must ciearly remember that -in dealing with this matter we are dealing with systems and not men,- and the trade has its special record, and. he knows it is not a sweet- one. My letter glanced-at matters as expressed in its everyday phases, and unfortunately for Mr Barry, not as he would have us see them, but as they are in very fact; and if the trade cannot hold indignation meetings it is not because they would -not if they could, ’but because the reputation of the trade has become a bye word and a disgrace to a community. If there is any good in the liquor business why is it not made known ? hut the trade constantly rakes up the bad and endeavors to put it on other shoulders -than their own. They pretend to show us tho evil it can do in no-license 'districts, and overlook the greater amount of evil done in our own. And yet the trade are the breeders and instigators of this evil. The fruitful source of it. They are the interested parties in the safe of liquor-. It is not the people who are putting up the fight for liquor, it is the brewer and the publican, and thus they class themselves as lawbreakers by defying the law, for the purpose of getting to themselves a privilege that means a large source of profit and revenue to them. Think of men whose system of morals does not enable them to determine whether the Government has the right to stop such things, -and then compare the attitude of the liquor interests as defined by the literature they circulate, and the public will not have to guess long before they guess right. I would suggest that Mr Barry look u]> Webster for a definition of “fair piay,” and try and reconcile it with the tactics of the trade. Mr Barry has, no doubt, a lot of consideration for himself and very little for the people the trade destroys, and if he looks at things with the blind eye. it necessarily follows his vision will be faulty. His eulogy on himself -may do for patter, but it will not satisfy the general public who are the judge in the matter. —I am, etc., “FAIR PLAY.” Gisborne, October 29.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —Your correspondent D. J. Barry, whose letter appeared in this morning’s paper, is either wilfully trying to deceive the public or else is lamentably ignorant of the aims of the No-license party. He refers to a gentleman in our midst who considers himself aggrieved because the -Government is taking over part _ of his property at the expiration of his lease. .He then goes on to ask: “How much snore aggrieved must the hotelkeeper be., knowing that not a pt i - tion of his property, hut the w hole of it, may be taken, from him, and ho himself ruined, by the caprice of such as ‘.‘Fair Play.” Sir, if this be not misrepresentation I am at a loss to understand it. The well-known a; in of the No-license party is not to interfere in any way with the hotelkeeper’s property, but simply to refuse to renew his license when it expires. How - -this can ho construed into taking away the whole. of the jean’s property would iiake f fft Phils-

delphia lawyer” to explain, especially when it be remembered that the license is an annual one, or, at most, under existing conditions, practically a triennial one. It seems plain, Sir, that D. J. Barry's desire to defend “the trade” has caused liim to go beyond British fair play, or else lias made him very illogical in his reasoning.—l am, etc.,

“FAIR PLAY II.” Ormond, Oct. 28.