THE DIRECT VETO MEETING IN GERALDINE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2535, 29 July 1893, Page 2

THE DIRECT VETO MEETING IN GERALDINE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As my name has appeared twice in your issue of Saturday last—first in your advertising columns as a preacher of the Gospel, and secondly in your correspondence column as a member of the firm of “ Messrs McKenzie, Hammond & C 0.,” “ lying, mean ” prohibitionists—kindly permit me space for the statement of a few facts in explanation of this incongruous position, and in vindication of the views I expressed at the late political meeting held in Geraldine re temperance legislation. In scanning the columns of the Guardian I saw “ A Resident ” has thought it proper, in his wisdom, to give prominence to my name as a “mean lying” prohibitionist. Replying, I will give my accuser credit for a phenomenal development of the bump of caution, for instead of attacking any of the movers of the resolutions, he singles out Messrs McKenzie and Hammond, the two weakest of the seconders. “ A Resident ” is a wily tactician. He fights under cover of a nom de plume. He takes up a strategic point, “ lies meanly ” entrenched behind the cover of his guns, and fires away furiously at two of the outposts. “A Resident” also twits me on my knowledge of the law. He is at liberty to do so. I will not on that account own to total ignorance of what is the law, nor of what is an equitable administration of justice, notwithstanding his sneers. It is not against the law our contentions are, but against the maladministration of it. For “We know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (I. Tim., i., 8), neither is our contention against justice, but for a more equable and equitable administration of it. Had “ A Resident” been present at our meeting on the evening in question, he would have heard from my little speech “ that an amendment of the present Licensing Act would meet ‘our’ requirements” a course which has since been followed by no less an authority than Sir Robert Stout. If criticism of legal processes and judicial sentences necessarily imply “lying” or “meanness,” I fear you yourself, Mr Editor, must stand sponsor for a lot of us, for you have often taught us both by precept and example. His Honor Mr Justice Deuuistoun and the Court of Appeal founded their judgment on the assumption “ that the law was framed, not to destroy, but to regulate the liquor traffic.” A perusal of the present Licensing Act points to a different c mdasion, and the judicial administration of the measure bears such conclusion evidence. While the present Act provides for the optional limitation of the traffic in New Districts it also supplies the Lisoensing Committees, the representative i of the ratepayers, with the power of closing some of the hotels, which has been done in several parts of the colony, under thepreT'fnw. aa the total or partial sent Act. - , fa fatal suppression of a tramc or partial destruction, a partial suppression of the liquor traffic signifies its partial destruction, a conclusion which is in excess of, and which seems to have escaped the discriminating acumen of the Court of Appeal. Should “ A Resident” bo inclined to concentrate some of the Iffiht he has accumulated in his peregrinations in “a far country on these statements, ho would discover that prohibitionists have better reasons for their assertions than “lying, mean devices.” Apologising for the length of this letter, I am, etc., Colin McKenzie, Senior partner in the firm of Messrs McKenzie, Hammond & Co. Riverfordj July 1893.