NO-LICENSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2341, 6 November 1908, Page 2

NO-LICENSE.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —I have read the letters of Hr. G. J. Black and “Fair Play” in your issue of the 29th iust., and wish to refer as briefly as possible thereto. First, let me reply to Mr. Black. If lie carefully reads my letter again hewill see that l neither directly nor indirectly, have I identified him as votir •"Fair Play” correspondent. The sole reason for introducing liis matter was that it was in the public eye, and by means of comparison showed the evident injustice that- would' be committed if “Fair Play’s” views in respect to hole! property were given etteot to. But Mr. Black will pardon me if I fail to see where 1 could have “gratuitously insulted” him, even if 1 had wrongly drawn the conclusion that lie wasi “Pair Play,” considering that lie holds with every word expressed in that writer’s letter. I do not wish to do Mr. Black or anyone injustice, by innuendo or otherwise, and I think it would be more satisfactory—l was almost going to say more manly—if the other correspondent signed 'liis name to his letter, then there would be no doubt as to the authorship. Even if “Fair Play” will not concede, that to me, I am sure the public will give uie credit lor having the courage of my opinions, seeing that they are written over my own signature. Now, “Fair Play” says there was no abuse in liis first letter. I will quote liis own words in order that your readers may judge :—“A few days ago it was made known that an additional donation would be given to a certain institution if continuance were carried. Of the two sides which is to be commended—the open honesty of the one which seeks the greater good, or the cunning bribery of the other who is looking after self-interest, and is alive 'to the fact that .a. few pounds invested as a donation will bring a fifty-fold return if license is continued.” Is not that second sentence a direct charge of bribery and ;a gross insult, not only to the doner, who promised the additional amount, but to the intelligence of those who accept the donation and promise and a libel on their integrity of character . If “Fair Play” thinks the people of Gisborne are to be bought in this way lie holds them very cheap indeed, and it explains liis hysterical anxiety to deprive them of the right to act and tnink for themselves in. the matter of what they should drink or not drink. He says “The liquor trade has resorted to slander and l misrepresentation, and the expressions of public men who are directly opposed to them have been twisted as savoring of sympathy.” I leave it to your readers to form their own opinion of such remarks - . In his second letter he writes:—“The publican is a drunkard maker and ail impoverisher of the people.” Let any unbiassed mind consider that statement with a knowledge of the actual proportion of drunkards to the consumers of liquor. He further says:—“That it is only tiie liquor business that as up for the judgment of the people,” and draws fiis conclusions accordingly. As a matter of fact the whole system of Government throughout the Dominion is up for tho mandate of the iieople, and it is only agitation and exaggeration by an extreme section that has brought matters to such an acute stage m respect, to licensing matters. Again he says:—“The reputation of the trade has become a bye-word and a disgrace to a community.” This 1 give an unqualified denial-That there nave been abuses in the conduct of one or two hotels is admitted, but one swallow does not make a summer, and nobody regrets more than I do myself, those 'abuses. Against this aspersion. I would point out that with few exceptions the hotelkeepers of Gisborne have been resident- an the district for over a quarter of a centuary, and during that long period have enjoyed and retained l the friendship of the old pioneers, the backbone _ of Poverty Bay. They have, notwithstanding the no-license -agitation and the charges made in connection therewith been credited with at least seme of the attributes that make for good citizenship, they have not been found entirely devoid of generosity .and the ordinary feelings of humanity. Whero then is the fairness of an unknown quantity such as “Fair Play” in stigmatising them in this way ? Another passage:—“lt is not the people who are putting up the fight for liquor, it is the brewer and the publican.” For the sake of (argument, suppose that to be the case. Does “Fair Play” or anyone else think that they should', without compensation, be deprived of their interest in a long-established, legitimate, and - perfectly legal business that has been deemed in times past, and even at the present day, in spite of fanatics, a necessity, -a comfort and convenience to a large section of the community ? It does not require very careful perusals of “Fair Play’s” letters to discover that they display a distinct bias against the liquor trade, which fact renders them entirely valueless .as public criticism. In finally concluding this issue with my unknown correspondent, let me point out that I am not a theorist in this matter, bub - a practical man who deals with practical tilings in a practical way. Those engaged in the liquor business have not been the aggressors, but have been forced by the other side to defend their rights and property against the assult of -iinporteu lecturers and agitators' who have not onepennyworth at stake in this district, and who do nob desire to “prohibit,” but simply to bring about a change of system that suits their own views. If to drink is ;a sin, I ask the mothers of Gisborne whether they would not sooner have their sops drin'k openly than commit the secret sip that

would obA r iously be the result- of no- ■ license. I aslc them to view the mat-.-er dispassionately and not be- carried away on a wave of sentiment by those who are here lor no other purpose than to play on tlioir feelings. I am etc.

D. J. BARRY Gisborne, Oct. 31st. 1908.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —Just at this time, when there are so many claims on your valuable space, I feel a little diffident about further trespassing upon it, at the same time, if you will permit -me to do so, I should like to make a feAV comments upon “Total Abstainer’s” rejily to my last letter. In the first place “Total Abstainer” says, “Why tlo I not .inform the police of the existence of tho sly-grog shops F” .Perhaps a definition of the' term “sly-grog” may not, at this juncture, be out of place. Selling outside the law is sly-grog, and as most- people who keep their eyes open and their Avits about them know that this (to put it mildly) not .infrequently happens, I think it hardly likely that the police are unaAvare of .it-. “Total Abstainer” must have a poor opinion of her sex Ai'lien she says that Avhen the bar is abolished women will become barmaids in their oavu homes. Granting for a moment that some Aviil drink at all costs, this furnishes no argument in favor of the open bar, which is ever ready to ensnare the Aveak and despoil him both of his money and self-respect. Tho -fact that “Total Abstainer’s” husband may bo able- to clrihk and steer clear of excess does not argue that e\ r ery ono else can, and there are many persons avlio, owing to hereditary tendency or their environment, are unable to limit themselves and so go- on from so-called moderate- drinking till they become habitual drunkards. “T.A.” goes on to say that it is better for a Avoman to be married to the man that drinks than to the money-grabber, (as .if the latter might be the only alternative). One thing is evident, feAV occupations afford equal facilities for the aniassf ing of money as the liquor traffic does. With reference to Poverty Bay under no-license -in the early days, 1 fail to see Avhat bearing that has on the problem of the. present day—the times and conditions being of a totally different order. As for the , Natives at the present time, the existing state of affairs is anything but conducive to either their moral or physical Avelfare. —I am etc., REASON.