THE DIRECT VETO MEETING IN GERALDINE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2533, 25 July 1893, Page 3

THE DIRECT VETO MEETING IN GERALDINE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In your issue of Saturday last appears a letter by “ Resident,” to which 1 reply. The above meeting was a public one, and was open for discussion, and all, even if anti-vetoists, would have been given a fair hearing. I think it would have been more honorable for “ Resident ” to have been present, and protested, than to hide behind the cover of a nom-de-plume, and here criticise speeches, as reported in your paper. He writes first with great gush to repudiate the statements made by Mr Hammond, but does not utter one word which makes them false. If “ Resident ” knows they are untrue, why does he not prove them to be such 1 The statement made by Mr Hammond in reference to Sunday trading is true, and is corroborated by others who do not view these things with the bias of a Prohibitionist. “ Resident ” asks, “ Was he {Mr Hammond) certain the drunken man was telling the truth ”'!■ Well, Sir, if that time worn saying has any truth in it, I should say Yea ! because “ children and drunken men always speak the truth.” Surely our good friend must be sightless, or has gone about Geraldine with his eyes shut for the last twelve months, when he says : “ I have not seen a drunken man . . . for the last twelve months.” I have been in Geraldine under six month* and the followi' g is a record of what I know has taken place during that time : —During certain Sundays —the days on which drink is not sold to any but bona Julg travellers —there have been several glaring cases of drunkenness. At hotel No. 1, there is a number of drunken men performing gymnastic exercises; at No. 2, two men are seen to go into the hotel, the two being unquestionably under the influence of drink, one with his eye blackened and his face bruised. A party of religious people are holding a service in the street, and a man quite drunk comes from a hotel and uses such language to these people, that a Court of Justice would call it obscene. And these things have taken, place quite recently. Under six mouths two men die from the effects of a drunken spree, and another’s death is directly traceable to the influence of drink. At one house the inmates are aroused after twelve o’clock at night by a poor woman flying from a drunken husband. Another morning a man is seen as early as eight o’clock, a pitiable sight, almost a lunatic. These, sir, are “ sights enough to make men and angels weep.” And I have seen others, and heard some, as they have been going home from some convivial gathering where there was a pelting of blancmanges, an exhibition of the school-boys’ game “ More sacks on the mill.” Surely “Resident” was not in earnest when making such a statement. Ho also refers to Mr 0. McKenzie’s speech and jeers at him. Mr McKenzie referred to the spirit in which the Act of 1881 was passed. It became law after an expression of opinion had been given throughout the colony in favor of “ Local Option.” The late Sir William Fox, who was instrumental in passing the Act, and others, until last year believed that it granted all that the temperance party required. The decision of Mr Justice Dennistouu, was questioned by Mr 0. McKenzie only as being against the spirit in which the Act was passed. No word reflecting on the character of the Judge was uttered by any, nor did the caucus set themselves up as being above the Court of Appeal. I should like also to say that there is no conflict of opinion existing in the temperance party. Mr Robson’s letter did not refer to the gist of what Mr Hammond contended, but to the mention made of the letter being sent to the chairman of the Licensing Committee. In conclusion, we as a party want fair play, and intend to give it to the other side, and not to resort to mean lying devices, and we hope the other side will do the same. We only ask that this vital vital question be submitted to the people, and to let them decide whether they will have the liquor traffic or not. Thanking you in anticipation, —I have, etc., W. 0. Woodward, - Hon. Sec. Geraldine League.

TO THE EDXTOK. Sie—ln the Geraldine Guardian of Saturday a correspondent, signing himself “ Resident/’ gives your numerous readers to understand that Geraldine is a very sober place, that he has not seen a man drunk for such a long time, and amongst other things he condemns the “lying devices ”of the prohibitionists. He tells us also that he was away, bnt he does not say -where he was, he might have been to the Chicago Exhibition, or perhaps in one of Her Majesty’s prisons. Now if “ Resident ” would only tell the truth or keep silent on this important subject, he would have done his cause more good. Surely “ Resident ” is home long enough to know that it was only on last Wednesday a man well known in Geraldine was brought before the court there for drunkenness and remanded to Timaru for medical treatment. Men have actually died here within the past three months from drunkenness, one of whom was found dead in his hut, with his eyes eaten out by rats. There is scarcely a week passes without men being drunk in Geraldine, to the scandal of children and annoyance of passers-by. If such was not the case, what would keep three public-houses running 1 Surely not worse practices. Again, “ Resident ” asks where was the constable on the occasion of this drunken man coming out of the hotel on Sunday, and has the licensee his license still 'I to which I reply, the constable cannot be everywhere, and secondly, the licensee has still his license, as the present licensing bench was elected to keep the hotels open, no matter how they were conducted. “ Resident ” tells us he does not belong to the “ liquor ring.” He might have left us to find that out, and not added another untruth to his other false statements. Apologising for trespassing on your valuable apage, bu+ knowing your columns are always open to truth and justice, I am, etc, A& Qpo Resident.