To the Editor.
Stout or Seddon Veto.
Siu, —The Rev. Mr McAra’s letter, in explanation and justification of his position on the Direct Veto question is, I venture to say, the mildest, aud, therefore, I hold, the best, he has ever contributed to the Star. I beg to compliment him upon the adoption of a conciliatory tone. lam not at one with him, however, in his contentions. He reminds me that in July last we (the meeting) discussed Sir Robert Stout's form of Direct Veto, whereas, recently, we (again a public meeting) discussed Direct Veto according to the Seddonian gospel. I would remind the rev. gentleman that bad it not been for my intervention the meeting in July would not have discussed Sir Robert’s method of arriving at a decision, as the promoters only desired to obtain an affirmation of the principle of Direct Veto, on a bare majority basis, without any condition as to community of interest. Unless there be that then would Direct Veto amount to a wrong. Do you not see, Mr Me Ara, that in any case where the interests of separate districts conflict it is unjust for one to interfere with another ?
The principle of intervention in one’s neighbour's affairs, when one has not communal interest therein, is objectionable under any Bill, and it would have been more so under that of Sir Robert Stout’s than at present. Let it be assumed that, under a bare majority rule (Sir R. Stout’s proposal), Kaikoura voted 300 in favour of Prohibition, Amberley, with the residents of which we have really no community of interest in Licensing affairs, only voted 75 for Prohibition, as against 100 for License. Would it be reasonable that Kaikoura’s vote should override that of Amberley ? I assert that it would be most unfair. Transpose the cases and my rev. friend will see the force of my contention. Under any circumstance, interference with an outsider’s affairs by virtue of a bare majority would be tyrauuical, and that is what Sir Robert's Bill aimed at providing for.
The tardy recognition made by the Rev. Mr McAra that he now sees that I have Temperance principles at heart, and that lam striving for such—as I always have striven—is none the less welcome, even though acknowledgment thereof is only offered now—the 11th hour. My letter of the other day simply reaffirmed my views on Temperance as opposed to the Liquor Trade (simply as a trade) on the one hand, and Prohibition on the other. I have ever favored Temperance, my belief in it has grown stronger, as has also has that that I have no right to interfere in my neighbours lawful aims, objects and desires. lam not now a convert to Temperance having observed—practised—it from my youth. There is a very subtle sentence —or portion of one—at the end of Mr McAra’s letter. Hs says, speaking of me, ‘we gladly welcome him nnder our standard.' Is this a trap ? Those who are not for us are against us, eh ? I am not going to beat about the bush, or sail under false colours—or standard. The Rev Mr McAra’s «;/«—his Standard, I take it—is Prohibition, mine is woZ. I will assist the Temperance party by all the means in my power, and I make this statement unreservedly, not wishing to mislead either fellow-workers or opponents. I find that Mr Paap's brief and interjectory remarks—from the Chair, at the late meeting—were not intended as applying to the Liquor controversy at all, but in support of Mr Parsons’ observations ou Liberalism, generally.
My statement as to the weakness, public ly, of the candidate lowest on the Poll has been questioned. Well, since my previous letter was written, another, and a purely local, election that for three members of the Kowai Road Board, has taken place. There were four nominations, and the candidate referred to was the lowest of the successful men, but even then nearly fifty per cent under the one at the head. Enough I 1 dm not going to engage in a paper war on a matter that can be debated until Doomsday, without not only failing to arrive at finality, but, also, without doing much, if any, good. Let ‘ Temperance ’ be the motto for the community, with self-application of Prohibition by al] who choose to adopt it. Personal Prohi-
bitionis unobjectionable, when it is observed as an act of * free will and accord.' If forced upon individuals able to control themselves, whether they will or no, is quite another pair of shoes. Geo. Ren neb.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KAIST18940601.2.28
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Kaikoura Star, Volume XIV, Issue 743, 1 June 1894, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
759To the Editor. Kaikoura Star, Volume XIV, Issue 743, 1 June 1894, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.