ATTEMPT TO RESTORE THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN MASTERTON.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10496, 6 December 1911, Page 6

ATTEMPT TO RESTORE THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN MASTERTON.

ITe The Editor.]

Sir,— So the so-called and self-styled "business" men of Masterton have met- in solemn conclave and decided that the future prosperity of the town and district depends on the restoration of licensed houses. The mooting in question was apparently open to only a select few —the selectfew being evidently only those who had expressed disapproval of NoLicense —but from which meeting the representatives of the press were most carefully excluded. Why this

secrecy and hole-and-corner way of 'advocating that which it is contended is for the moral well-being and pros-

| perity of the community? If the jj cause, is just,- and for the common i good, why exclude the press and those '■* who are interested in the great ques;ii>n of the control of tho liquor traffic? So carefully have the names of those present at the meeting been suppressed that the public are only aware that Messrs B. G. Eton, Donald Donald, and J. O. Boddington were present, those being the only names that have been published in connec,tion with that meeting. Surely it is not contended that the prosperity of a. town or disrict depends upon the

quantity of alcoholic liquor consumed. If so, then the "booser" a.nd the habitual "drunk," who spends most of his' money at the bar, is a greater benefactor to the town or district .than the sol>er individual, who docs

inot frequent the bar, and who doc, not partake of alcohol. There is no ■getting away from the fact that that must be the contention of all those who decry No-License, and who eontend that tho closing of the public bars is derimental to the best interests of the town and district. Could anything bo more fallacious or absurd ? Jf the cause of those who wish for Restoration is so good and sound, why is it that those supporting the 'liquor trade are unable to produce on the public platform those who ca i > support bv sound argument tho benefit from ' the liquor traffic? Winalso, if No-License is so detrimental, as wo aro led to believo from the utterances of the liquor pa,rty, is it that in ,no single case has a district that has once carried No-License gone back.to Restoration? That, to my mind, is a. most significant fact, and completely dispels the contention that No-License means practically ruination to a district where it. is carried. I would like to show that, from a. I strictly economical point of view, liI! censed houses in a district, if owned by absentees from the district in person, instead of being a .benefit are a decided loss to the revenue of the district. Take for instance the town of Masterton prior to No-License. .There were six hotels, namely, Occidental, .Club, Prince of' Wales, Queen's, Central, and Empire. I presume that for argument's sake I am quite safe in assuming that the collective weekly rental of those six hotels amounted to £IOO per week. At it-he time I refer to, not one of the owners of the freehold of those six houses resided in Masterton, or within many miles of Masterton. As a matter of fact, | many of the houses were what are I styled "tied" 'houses, and were controlled from the city of Wellington. Therefore, out of Masterton went each week in hard cash no less a sum than £IOO. or each month £400.... In addition, tbero was the cash for the.,l>eer, whiskey and other alcoholic liquor, nearly al! procured from Wellington, and not only that, but all the grocer--1 ies, etc., required for those houses,, where also procured from Wellington. If .the so-called "business" men of Masterton doubt the correctness of this, let them ask any grocer in Masterton} and no doubt they will be surprised to find that this is correct, ag the only things as a rule an the grocery line that were purchased in Masterton were the things that the hotels ran out of, all groceries being obtained in bulk from Wellington, where the freeholders resided. The value of the alcoholic liquor and groceries obtained from Wellington must have run into thousands of pounds per year, cash for these of course being sent oiit of the small {own of Masterton to the City of Weflingon. Can. or will, my friends the so-called "business" men of Mastertpn. dispute the fact that not one shilling of that large sum ever came back to Masterton except yhen the brewers'-' traveller or the wine and spirit maoi came his. usual, rounds and "shouted for all, hands and the cook," on the < average of say once a month. I think that even Mr E. G. Eton, the J reputed chairman of the'meeting of business men, will not dispute the fact that of the very large sum of money going direct to Wollingtoi.

very little of it every returned. As ■against the darge sums going out of the town, we nave the amount expended for gas, rates, wages, etc., but what is that compared to the thousands that I have shown, are completely lost to the town. There was, and I believe still is, a brewery in Masterton, where really good beer was turned out; but under the conditions of the tenancy of the various hotels not one drop from the local brewery was allowed to be sold in them. If the conditions had been •otherwise, and the hotels free to draw local- beer, work could have been provided in that brewery for ten to a dozen employees, and the money circulated in tho town; but no, it hud all to go to Wellington. Thus, that, which might have been a local indtistry was boycotted. Here ds another matter for the "business" men to consider from an economical point of view. A few years ago a hotel was destroyed by fire in Masterton. For tho erection of the new house an architect residing in Wellington was employed; tho contract wa.s let to a Wellington firm of builders; the workmen employed on the building were brought also from Wellington ; and when the time arrived for furnishing the new hotel, the whole of the furniture was procured in Wellington. That was a good and profitable piece of business for the "business" men of Masterton, was it not? I air. inclined to wonder what the present "business" men of Masterton now think 01 the transaction. Other instances cou'ld be given to show that the absentee owner of hotel property is by no means a benefactor, nor from an economical point of view are licensed houses and public bars a benefit to 1 a town or district.—l am, etc..

AN EX-RESIDENT Auckland, December 1, 1911.