DRINK UNDER NO-LICENSE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 263, 30 October 1908, Page 3

DRINK UNDER NO-LICENSE.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. [Published by Arrangement.] The letter from an Ashburton mother, published in the Dominion recently, lias evidently had a disturbing effect on the 'No-Licenso party. At a meeting lwld in the Vivian Street Church on a recent Monday evening, the Rev. L. Dowdney referred to the matter, "God help that mother," he said, "but who sold the liquorV' I The answer is simple enough. The liquor was sold by a sly-grog dealer, whose business was establihed and made profitable by the No-Liceuse vote. Eve;y man and every woman who voted fjr No-License in Ashburton, and every paid agent of the No-License party who induced the electors to try this disastrous policy is responsible for that boy's downfall, and for his mother's broken heart. UNLICENSED SALE.

Much as they may desire it, there is no escape from the responsibility. Every advocate of No-License knows that lie is not fighting against liquor; indeed, when soliciting the vote of the moderate drinker, prohibitionists usually iay stress on the fact that they are not trying to deprive him, but are simply seeking to close the open bar. In other words, they object to liquor being sold openly, but do not. object to its being sent privately in any quantity. Since 1004, when they were offered ill Air. Seddon's famous "Clause 0" the option of making No-Licence mean no-liquor, and refused it, they have been simply advocates of the private sale of liquor in preference to the public licensed sale.

A PROMISING PARTNERSHIP. Even now, when tlieii method has proved itself so disastrous in its effects, they still ask the electors to vote foi the system which they know means the sly-grog den, and they do so with their eyes open. They are practically making themselves partners in this nefarious business, and they are the real sellers of every drop of sly-grog sold in Ashburton. It is them, and them alone, the poor Ashburton mother has to thank for her son's ruin. It is useless to throw the blame, as 'Mr. Dowdney does, on the merchant who supplied the liquor. They receive the order in the ordinary way of busi- | ness, and execute it as they are entitled and authorised by law to do, and living as they do at a distance how can they possibly tell who they are supplying? ' The truth is that the syst&m is. a pernicious one. as Ashburton has found to its sorrow, and in a few weeks Ashburton's opinion will he expressed at the polls in no uncertain manner, ill spite of all the efforts of the sly-grog —Prohibition partnership. CLOUDING THE ISSUE.

' Since the above was written an ad- | vertisement, inserted by the No-License party, lias appeared in, the •' Dominion," iwhifJi attempts to belittle this poor mother's testimony. This advertisement states that she was never a member oi the Prohibition party, as alleged. No sucfa suggested was ever made, so that all argument based on this purely fanciful allegation falls to the ground. Equally futile is the statement that the unfortunate youth once obtained liquor on a Sunday in an adjoining licensed district. Having acquired the taste, he no doubt obtains liquor wherever and whenever he can. This in no way affects his statement that he acquired that taste in Prohibition Ashburton; neither does it do away with the fact that in order to save her son she got the police to raid a slygrog den on a Sunday, ami that her boy was found on the premises. "THE BOY'S MOTHER." WHO IS SPEAKING THE TRUTH? A CHALLENGE.

The No-License party recently inserted an advertisement in The Dominion impugning the good faith of the letter signed " The Boy's Motlier," written to an Ashburton paper, and re-published in the columns of The Dominion. The advertisement alleged that the boy was in the habit of obtaining his liquor, not in Ashburton, but in the adjoining license town of Chertsey, and quoted, in proof, the fact that on Friday, June 22, the proprietor of the Chertsey Hotel was charged that lie did, on Sunday, June 3, sell liquor to one Thompson •(while the boy was in his company). The suggestion is that this happened this year. WHEREAS, AS A HATTER OF FACT,' IT HAPPENED TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO, and, therefor ', had no reference at all to the recent case. A reference to the calendar will shurw that the last time June 3 fell on a Sunday was in 1906. The Xo-Licenec party is challenged to explain why the year was suppressed? Arc the other statements in the letter no more truthful than this? So mneh public'ty has been given to this matter that in order to show lier bona fides the I unhappy mother has authorised the publication of her name and address, and will reply to anyone sending a stamped addressed envelope to .Mrs. Wakeham, Ailken Street Ashburton. THE FAILURE OF NO-LICENSE. MR. BRUNTNELL CONTRADICTED. To the Editor. .Sir.—(Mr. Bruntnell ajul No-License advocates generally are extremely fond of quoting statistics with regard to the alleged decrease of drunkenness in those towns or electorates in which Nolicense has been carried. Now, when a man sets out to (juote figures, he ought to quote sufficient to show the whole of the case under review, instead of using merely those which are antagonistic to the other 3ide; or just sufiicient to prove his own case. Now, Sir, there is a trite old saying that 'Half the truth is worse than an untruth." Why does Mr, Bruntnell quote only the j record of convictions in the last year of license and the first year of no-license? I now give you the record for every year since that time, and 1 think that even a brief study of them will conclusively show why Mr. Bruntnell does not adduce them in support of his cause. These are no "faked" figures. They are an actual copy of the records of tta Magistrate's Court at Ashburton, given under .tile hand and signature of Mr. V. G. Day, Stipendiary Magistrate. The figures speak foi themselves:— Convictions for drunkenness in 1904, the first year of no-license, were 23. And they follow on thus:—

Convictions. In 1904 23 •' 1905 34 " 1000 42 " 1907 . 14 " 1908 (half vear ended June 30) 24 ■So we seen there has been an increase pacli Tear from the end of tlvc first year of no-license. Perhaps it is no longer remarkable that Mr. Bruntnell did not quote these figures to his audiences in Tarauaki. In 1!)03. we are told, there were 91 convictions. I have found from tlie records that hi tlic first half-year, from June to December, 1903, there were only eleven cases of drunkenness, and only fifteen eases of breaches of the Incensing Act, includrag drunkenness, procuring liquor, being on licensed premises, ami so on. Is it iprobable that the other half-year would I have seven times as liuuiy convictions? I leave it to the commonsense of the people. Now, of general licensing eon victions there were in 1904 48 1905 53 IUOG ™ 1907 ' 8 1908 (half-vcar elided June Here are some more figures that have no been advanced by tlic no-license side, and I don't think they ran be held to prove that in Ashburton nolicense lias been such a crowning success Remembering all we have heard about the matter from them, can the intelligent electors of this district make the no license statements and these sworn returns coincide? And, if not. which we are to believe, the official _e turn or the irresponsible utterance of the no-license platform advocati .-1 am, etc. AncnT.TTTF. FACTS.