MA. MAJOR AND THE PROHIBITIONIST.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 28, 7 October 1901, Page 2

MA. MAJOR AND THE PROHIBITIONIST.

(THE NEW PLYMOUTH MOEHSB). [Mr. 0. E. Major, Mayor of Hawera, forwards us the following letter (a copy of one wbich he has sent to the editor of the Prohibitionist) with a request for its insertion, as he particularly desires its publication in New Plymouth. As New Plymouth people are best; able to appraise the value of Mr. Major's evidence, we comply with •his request.-^-En.] To the editor Prohibitionist, Christchurch. . Siß,mOn the 26 u1t0.,1 received.by post, from whom I know not, a copy sf an article on the above question pubin yourjournal of the 13th July last, and was annoyed, yet not surprised, to find its author 'bad dexterously manipulated Jibe evidence given for the ap : jplicant, go tbat itmight, appearj ths | witnesses had foresworn themselves I No oiie 1 know, other than a blindly | zealous prohibitionst would so jrickedly ( misconstrue the evidence, and tbe i bona fides tot the witnesses for the applicant. The writer has brought sophistry to its highest pitch io the article in question, and can claim to be a sophist of the very highest order. To even men or women of sound judgment the fallaciousness of his statements perhaps would not be discovered until the other side had bean heird in' rebutlal. I propose, only to defend myself from his malignant and calumnious statements, and trust some New Plymouth resident will do the game for Mr. Stanford who is most unfairly aqd virulently assailed for giving the only decision that any man other than a prejudiced a hare-brained crank could deliver. Ido not intend to deal, with the question of whether, pr not, there in sufficient hotel accommodation in Nev Plymouth, and the fact that the narrow greed of tbe New Plymouth hotel-keepers induced 'them to enter into open alliance with their oeponents, and so they ranged them into battle arainat the applicant. ' The writer,) to distort his argument, distorts the crura by drawing a deduction from a part of my evidence. I stated, and iipon oath would again make the same statement, " That I found difficulty in obtaining hotel accommodation in New Plymouth for people accompanying me; tbat I had p bed at the Criterion Hotel, and I suposed that someone else would Have to go without." My reason for saying so was that the landlord had led me to believe, when I asked for accommodation, that the hotel was full, but he would find, at whatever cost, accommodation for myself, a compliment landlords at times pay their guests. If a thousand hotel clerks were afterwards called to state there were 14 or 15 vacant beds, it does not, as the sophistical writer would make it appear (unless to a* mind warped by one-sided advocacy) affect my evidence in any way soever. I also said," There is no reasonable doubt tbat more hotel accommodation is required in New Plymouth," and I have not changed my then opinion. I have always been a staunch advocate of temperance and abstemiousness in both eating and drinking, and hope I will do more duping my life to honestly promote the reformation of intemperate humanity than the writer of the article thatgeeks to vilify tru'hful citizens. In tbe true cause of temperance it i« regrettable that the writer did not use his talent in dealing with the statements of fact alone instead of elaborating in a vein of forced sarcasm upon the Magistrate's really able and judical exposition of tbe case. The opinion of the moderate and thoughtful section of the community is that articles of the kind in question are a curse and a blight to tbe cause of temperance by eliminating the sympathies of thi multitude, who, notwithstanding occasional straying from the path of rectitude, are as a great body in their hearts of hearts love's of truth and justice.—l am etc., C. E. MAJOB.