THE LICENSING CAMPAIGN.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2347, 13 November 1908, Page 2

THE LICENSING CAMPAIGN.

[To the Editor.] Sir,—All along in this campaign 1 have deprecated personalities, and sought to deal with- facts as I understood them. If I have misunderstood facts and figures, or drawn wrong conclusions therefrom, 1 am ready to apologise and withdraw, and this I feed sure is generally true of the No-license party. Recent happenings make me doubt that it js true of our opponents. Let me say that there are honorable men and [men whom I personally esteem on the other side, who would 'not willingly or consciously descend to shady tactics, who would scorn to win a vote through misrepresentation; but 1 now charge the party as such, with gross and deliberate misrepresentation. The man in the street will call it by a much more vigorous name. This (Thursday) morning I received an envelope containing a- leaflet with the imprint of the Gisborne Licensed AGctuallers’ Association, headed “Solid, Unanswerable Reasons why you Should Strike out the Two .bottom Lines on the Ballot Paper.” One of these “solid, unanswerable’ -reasons is that “The Anglican Synod at Christchurch, composed of persons m tho best position to judge, by a large majority ‘Condemned the i rincipio of No-license’ ” (the quoted type as m the leaflet). Now, eight days ago tho vicar of Ashburton in- dealing with Mr Sheridan’s manifesto explained 'that the Press Association telegram which misled Air. Sheridan was wrong, -and that “The Synod composed of persons in- the best oosition to judge,” to quote the leaflet, really by a majority of five ‘-‘Commended the principle of No-license, but that the motion was lost on a technicality —the technicality being that the votes of clergy and laity are taken, separately, and that unless there as a majority of both clergy and laity an favor of a motion at as lost. ine voting was—Clergy: Ayes 29, noes 10 (nearly three to one of the clergy, you see, were in favor of No-license). Laity: Ayes 8, noes 22. It you add the ayes together you find that a total of 37 voted 'for No-license, and it you add the noes together you find that a total of 32 voted against the motion, -so that it was really carried by a majority of'five, although technically lost. Not only dul the Rev. Air. Whitehouse explain the position to t-bie audience and to tho liquor party’s agent, Air. Davies, hut a tew days ago the Rev. Mr. -Chatterton published the -official figures in a letter t-o the “Times.” Yet this morning the Gisborne Licensed Victuallers’ Association publish to mo, and presumably to other electors, this statement which has been twice -refuted D-oos that Association mot believe the Rev. - Mr. Wldtehouse’s statement? Does it discredit the figures supplied by one who was a member of the Synod, or does at hav© .the audacity to publish- as ,a tact what has been, proved to he a 'falsehood in order to gull the electors? If this is sample of tho Liquor Party’s “-Solid, Unanswerable Reasons” for v-oti'ng continuance, all I can say is that they are in sore straits. I must confess to a feeling of disappointment on .reading Mr. Sheridan’s letter yesterday morning. Fie states therein that lie has “had no reply from the No-license- Party except frequent volleys of abuse, etc.” Some of us. were under tho impression that rthe Rev. Mr, ’Whitehouse had answered him rather effectively dp -many points, especially in,

ill is -matter of the- rote in. the Chri&ltchurch Anglican Synod, but instead jp acknowledging .liist error in manly fashion, and admitting that conjlusioii based upon it was therefore fallacious, lie keeps silence, and permits his party to dish up tiiig lie us x “Solid, Unanswerable Ideas on’’ why eileotors should vote continuance. —i am, etc., WILLIAM GRANT.