SOLDIERS AND LIQUOR.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4866, 17 August 1925, Page 2

SOLDIERS AND LIQUOR.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Following my letter as pubIfehed in Friday’s issue of your paper one of the gentlemen whose names I mentioned stated that he did not verify the latter part of the statement I attributed to Mr Marshall, in that he did not remember Mr Marshall stating “that a man who voted for restoration was like a man who would go over to the German lines." In view of that position, and in fairness to the gentlemen whose names I mentioned, I hasten to unreservedly withdraw that part of my letter iind express regret ■ that I should have stated that certain people verified my statements (when I honestly thought they did), and now find that there has been a misunderstanding. The rest of the letter I stand by without reservation.

EDWARD EDWARDS. Sir,— Although you decided that this matter should be closed subject to Mr Edwards’ right to reply, I hope you will allow me to defend myself against the entirely unprovoked attack made upon me by your last correspondent, who must surely have been hard pressed to have had to resort to this in order to find a replj to his critics.

What I said at the Chamber was, “that in my opinion the true patriots to-day were th'ose who were in the Prohibition movement” (and by patriot I meant one who truly loves and serves his country). 1 certainly used the word “to-day,” and was referring to the economic position, the seriousness of which is too well known to require further mention. This portion of my remarks had nothing to do with the, war in any way. What I meant, and*what I now repeat as my definite conviction, is that in my opinion the greatest service which could be rendered to our Empire to-day would be to carry Prohibition, and, conversely, that those who are opposing it are unconsciously working against the best interests of the nation. The whole purpose of my speech at the chamber was to endeavour to get that body to leave the question alone and to indicate that in holding these views my position as a member of the executive would become impossible if the chamber carried the resolution to take active . steps to assist restoration, in which event I said it would ho mo more possible for men who had worked and subscribed to the Prohibition movement to remain members of a corporate body Rising its corprate strength in the Liquor interests than it would have been possible for our soldiers to have gone over to the German lines during the war. This its a very different thing to making “a statement about those supporting restoration being like the man who would go over to. the German lines.” It is exceedingly difficult to understand how what I said could be misunderstood; but making full allowance for human misunderstanding, I immediately rose when Mr Edwards had finished speaking and explained that nothing was further from my mind than to refer to the war or to the comparative worth of the men who fought and died or the men who, like myself, remained in New Zealand —for the actual point and sting of Mr Edwards’ remarks (which you in your wisdom did not publish) was obviously that he had faced danger and death while 1 had remaiifed secure in New Zealand. For him to repeat his statements after my personal explanation at the meeting is deliberate misrepresentation. I most certainly made no remarks of any sort about Mr Edr wards’ fellow soldiers, and his claim of defending them from my remarks is a gratuitous insult which I deeply resent.

I should probably not have considered it worth while replying to Mr Edwards’ letter (especially as he is now organiser for the Restoration movement) but for his uisc of the names of gentlemen wnose opinion and esteem I value greatly. Decency forbids that I should make them uncomfortable by mentioning any names, but I challenge Mr Edwards to either declare and prove publicly that he had authority of each one to upe. his name in that- letter, and that each of them affirms that the construction his letter places upon my remarks was his definite impression of what I said and meant. If Mr Edwards cannot do this he should publicly apologise for publicly using their names in his letter.

May I be allowed a little further space to protest against the upe by public men of statements derogatory to Paeroa as arguments in favour of either Restoration or Prohibition. I take it that the last man to say a word against his town should be the Mayor, and the next last the deputyMayor. It was great regret, therefore, that I found the following statement published in “Truth,” with its country-wide circulation: “Mr E. Edwards contended that Paeroa had gone back considerably as a result of local option.” Thip sort of thing does us .untold injury, and it surely is bad business to build up with the right hand and pull down with the left. This is a definite illustration. of the wisdom of keeping this question out of our public institutions —it divides us among ourselves, which weakens our effort for the progress of Paeroa, breaks down that confidence in one another which makes for the support of local business, and puts bitterness and rancour in its place. In this connection I would like to ppint out that I did my best tb avoid this discussion, and, further, for the first time in 19 years’ residence in New Zealand I have refused., this year to take any active part in the work of the Prohibition party, not because I wished to sit on the rail—for most people in Paeroa know my convictions in the matter, and I have no idea of electioneering as it will bo absolutely necessary for me to retire from public life at the close of the present term of office —but I wished to devote all the time and energy which I ctiuld

find to public activities; in the interests of our town, to which work I have subordinated for the time being my interest in the Prohibition campain in common with every other interest which I have. I do claim, tb never having allowed by Prohibition sentiments to in any way interfere with my public duties, nor have I introduced the question anywhere or attempted. to be a. “kill-joy.” In conclusion 1 wfeh to say that I have no intention of being drawn further into this controversy • under any circumstances, and shall therefore not reply to any further lettes on the subject. W. MARSHALL.