To the Editor.

Kaikoura Star, Volume XIV, Issue 738, 15 May 1894, Page 6

To the Editor.

[An Open Letter.] The Licensing Question. Siu, —I have been twitted with not taking any part in the meeting held here recently, ostensibly, with regard to

the severance of Kaikoura from the Ashley Licensing District. Twitting those who take part in public affairs with not doing this, or with doing that, is a form of baiting applied by novices, for the most part, in order to 1 draw ’ men. Whether such is the intention in my case I know not; lam indifferent on the point. However, it affords me an opportunity of addressing readers of the Star, and the residents

of Kaikoura. There are various reasons why I did not address the meeting held on the 26th ulto. Before it opened I perceived signs of a semi-fiasco. Such the meeting proved. Next, I anticipated cases of tergiversation incontestably supporting the position I took up last July, which position was then most vigorously assailed. The change of front was, to my intense amusement, complete. While laughing in my sleeve at the course events were taking, I was a little surprised at some of those present making such a thorough (metaphorical) somersault, without offering any explanation of their action.

These, however, were not the reasons for my silence, though I bold I should have been quite within the mark in drawing attention to the Chairman and one of the speakers having so amply justified my case. Why I held my peace was for quite another reason, this : ‘That having been elected to an office the duties of which require one to act in a judicial manner, one is not justified, to my mind, in taking part in agitations, regarding such . matters, either for or against.’ Personal silence with respect to points of administration, and general discreetness regarding one’s position, should be observed. Hence my non-participation in the late meeting, and not any want of courage in expressing the opinions held by me, on this, or any other, public question. It will prove instructive—to some, at least—to compare notes. Last July a meeting was held here to consider the Direct Veto question. A Bill, fathered by Sir R. Stout, was before Parliament, extending the areas of

Licensing districts. I pointed out that large districts would be a mistake unless community of interest obtained, and that in the case of Kaikoura it was positively wrong to attach this County to the South for Licensin'? purposes, as Kaikoura votes would be swamped. Mr Inglesby was the only speaker who supported me, he contending that it was wrong to allow Amberley, or any part of Southern Ashley, to govern Kaikoura’s vote on the Liquor question ; it was a domestic matter, and each place should be allowed to carry things as the people of the locality wished. Both the then Chairman (the Rev. Mr McAra) and Mr Paap opposed me. I subsequently moved that the votes taken in the respective Licensing districts (then existing) should govern the question within the several Licensing districts. Mr Inglesby again supported me. Mr Paap characterised my motion as a most foolish one; thought it better that the question should be decided by the Electorates, rather than locally; it was a large question, and should be dealt with comprehensively. He moved an amendment affirming the principle embodied in Sir R. Stout’s Bill. The Rev. Chairman supported this, and the meeting adopted the amendment, al-

most unanimously, and, equally, rejected my motion. Now, what do we see? A metaphorical somersault! A complete change has come o’er the spirit of their dream. Now (26th April), Mr Paap, then being Chairman, objects to the ‘ comprehensive ’ form of dealing with the matter, and agrees that Kaikoura should not be ruled by the South. The Rev. Mr McAra, now, also, recants. He contended that injury had been done to Kaikoura by including

it with the rest of Ashley ; it was unjust that Amberley, or any other place, should overrule Kaikoura’s wishes. And so on. Two men in a small community rarely obtain such a complete victory over their fellow citizens, in so short a space of time, as I and Mr Inglesby have in this matter. Though both of our opponents were, I am sure,

actuated by the best intentions, they were mistaken, having - failed to get a grip of the matter Thus they were hoist with their own petard, as man}’ good men have been in the past, and others will be in the future. What the supporters of the Bill will say of a community, or, at any rate, one section of it, that is so fickle-minded as to completely change its views within 9 months it is hard to say. Perhaps this : ‘ Well, gentlemen, when you cease eating your own words, give up beating the air, and show us that you really have made up your mindson thequestion we’ll see what we’ll do with you.’ The Prohibition party in Kaikoura ask for a limited licensing area, the Prohibitionists of the adjoining electorate (Kaiapoi) favour an extended area I Which side is to be listened to ? On local grounds, I favour community of interest whether the districts be large or small, but the only reasonable form of Prohibition in a, comparatively, small community like New Zealand is one extending over the whole Colony. District Prohibition is only of isolated and, therefore, restricted value.

Here it occurs it to me that as the term Moderate is objected to as indicating one’s views on the Liquor question, a review of the classification of those who are taking a public part in this matter will not be out of place. Instead of being designated, as they now are, Temperance workers, Modererates, and Publican’s nominees, they should be styled : (1): Prohibitionists, or Abolitionists ; (2) ; Temperance Reformers (really the Moderates); and (3) Liquor Trade Advocates. By no stretch of imagination can the Prohibitionists be rightly viewed, now, as Temperance Reformers. Total Abstinence is not Temperance, and therefore, those who are fighting in favour of Prohibition are not strictly Temperance reformers. I and others favouring, first, strict and lawful regulation of the private sale of alcoholic liquids, in the terms of license, then, eventually, State dispensation, are the real Temperance reformers. The third party embraces those who advocate continuance of the traffic much on present lines with a tendency towards creating monopoly. I have no objection, whatever, to the increase, however great, of personal Prohibition, but I am opposed to forcing people to the acceptance of Total Abstinence, whether they will or no, by the force of action on the part of Prohibitionists.

It is almost idle entering into a discussion on the present Licensing Laws of the Colony. The whole of them will, of a surety, be amended, perhaps out of existence, and entirely remodelled. Better the latter plan, with the whole law in one consolidated measure.

One of the speakers at the late meeting rather got out of his depth. Disregarding the suggestion made in the Star that the Licensing Election should be viewed as a Moderate success,'he spoke of the candidate, who obtained the smallest number of votes, as ‘ one of the Liquor Party ’ being at the bottom of the poll. As the candiddate referred to is not here to defend himself, it is only fair to him that his position should bo understood. He was not in any way the nominee of the Liquor Party. Like myself, he was urged to stand as a Moderate and assented, at the last moment, being nominated by three fellow farmers. He, I learnt, is held in the highest esteem by all who know him thoroughly,but|is not viewed as a strong public man, and is practically unknown outside of his own district. I might have fared as indifferently as he did had 1 not made myself better known. It was also urged, as a matter of note, that not one Moderate was nominated by Kaikoura. Well, as I got 131 votes here,and the lowest'(an unknown man) on the poll in this place received 95

votes, it is reasonable to suppose that I could have got 100 nominees, if necessary, here. As a fact I could have obtained nomination at the hands of several Kaikoura settlers, some having offered to sign my nomination, and were disappointed in not being able to do so. This they were only prevented doing through my leaving earlier than I anticipated for the South, where I was urged to stand, and, also, promised nomination. Further, 1 have since been informed that had my views on the Liquor question been more distinctly known to the moderate section of the Prohibition party here (why there was any doubt I am at a loss to know) steps would have been taken to place me at the head of the poll. I am not indifferent regarding the good wishes contained in this, nor unmindful of support, but I would point out that (outside of Kaikoura) at the places at I which I spoke at the time of the j General Election I was put at the head of the Moderates, and in several casea of the poll. Had it not been in one cases that a question of local revenue was imported into the matter, •! have good reason to believe that I should actually have been first in the aggregate. However, as I was only 15 votes behind the one who was placed in that exalted position, I have very good reason to feel satisfied that 1 got so close to one who is generally viewed as the most popular man between Waiau and Rangiora. I would urge urge that minor points of difference be set aside, and that united efforts be .made in the interests of true Temperance, Prohibition may follow. Geo. Renner.