PROHIBITION IN SYDENHAM.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4191, 13 August 1892, Page 2

PROHIBITION IN SYDENHAM.

What has been done and is to

be done.

The Rev, L, M, Isitt, at one time in Masterton, and now leader of the Christchurch Prohibition party and chairman of the Sydenham Licensing Committee, was recently interviewed by a reporter of the Evening Star,,*^ Asked to briefly narrate the history of theSydenham affair, Mr Isitt said: Our Committee went in oh distinctly prohibition lines. We fought the first battle in 1890, but were beaten by t majority of 200, We immediately formed a Leugue, and ran a small four-page fortnightly paper, which wo distributed to every jiouse in the borough, and held frequent publio meetings, with the result that in 1891, instead of a minority of 200, we had a majority of 200, and of the 400 voles our opponets polled, at least 170 were city and trade votes, That was the first triennial eleotion, aud the result was a thunderbolt to th» Liquor party, for they had triumphal arches, Chinese lanterns, etc., all in readiness to celebrate their victory. Prior to this, Mr Louisson, one oftlie Christchuroh brewers, hod declared that in the event of our election he would give us-three years' litigation, and in this particular he is certainly doing bis best to keep his word. Before we sat an application w declare our eleotion null a" void or restrain us from doting as Prohibitionists was made to the Supreme Court, and was so far successful that Mr Justioe Denniston issued a mandamus direoting us to proceed on judicial, and not prohibition, lines; and, as we understood the judgment, direoting us to make provision for any minority demanding facility for the purchase of liquor, without respeottoany counter-wishes or any other circumstances whatever. Against thi3 we nave notice of appeal, but granted three licenses out of the eight under protest pending the decision of the Appellate Court, When that decision was given, in our opinion it largely modified Mr Justice Denniston's interpretation of the Act, while declaring it not a Prohibition Act giving us power to weigh the wishes of the majority, the oharacter ".f the neighbourhood, the facilities furnished by contiguous hotels, eto,, indeed all the pros and cons of the case, and determine accordingly, alter judicially considering matters we refused the three licenses which we granted the previous year. This was followed by another action in the Supreme Court, when, as you arc aware, Mr Justice Denniston quashed our proceedings ontheground of bias, deolaring that we had refused the licenses on prohibition grounds, and we were cast in costs.

How did that happen ? What was the reason that, notwithstanding you gained your appeal in the Supreme' Court, you were cast in costs? Did the publicans pay costs when they lost the appeal 5 Both sides paid their own costa in the first action in the Supreme Court and in the Appeal Court, and this last is the first time that costs have been given against either of the pari ties, I can only suppose that costs were given against us to mark the judge's sense of the wrongheadednesa of our conduct. How is it, if these three hotels of which you speak were in your opinion, required in 1890, that, with no aIM; ration in the oiroumßtances and conditions, you now think they are not required ? When we granted those licenses wa granted them simply in deference to the judge's interpretation of the Aot. Wo never believed that the licenses were required by the community, but we recognised olearly that a certain minority used the houses and asked for their continuance, and we maintain that Mr Justice Dennistou inbia first judgment declares that suoh wish on the part of such a minority was binding on us j he qualified it in no way, At that time we believed that that was not a reasonable interpretation of the Act, but we thought it our duty as law-abiding citizens to aot in accordance with His Honor's direction and wait the result of the appeal, and so we[granted the licenses under protest, What do tbe Committee think of the present judgment? We are naturally very ranch diaw* satisfied. We would rather that His - Honor should have declared that in his opinion we had committed deliberate and wilful perjury instead of suggesting that we do not know our own minds—that we are, in fact, so fanatical as to bo slightly imbecile, We have on the Committee one gentleman who has been a justice of the peacefor fifteen years; another who for years was clerk in Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw's office, and who ia also a borough councillor; and a third is a well-to-do tradesman, a borough councillor, and recognised as a shrewd businessman. We have all studied the Act until we havo it at our fingers' ends, and, whatever we have done, we certainly know the grounds upon which wo acted, and, being under no misunderstanding whatever, have ne wish to shelter ourselves in any way from tbe conclusion that we have eitherperjured ourselves oraoted judicially. You have spoken of three of tlik Committee, You are tho fourth, Wh« iB tbe fifth member ?

Thereby hangs a tale. The fifth member is Mr Ex-publican White, put there by the Governor in the place of Mr JKudd, who was unseated on the ground that, being a life assurance agent, he was a Government employe. Mr White is tbo only member who is supposed to be warranted as without bias and of a judicial mind, As he has sworn an affidavit as to the action of his fellowcommitteemen, I am betraying no confidence as ohairman when I say that he was the only man who was absent when we carefully reviewed the evidence and examined the petitions ior and aguinet the applications during the last decision of t|ie Lipensing Opurt, which h&d been appealed against, and wlio found no difficulty in voting for the granting of the a whoie eight, licensee, And how is the fight going on now? So far as our opponents are concerned it ia only natural that thgy should fight very vigorously for thj|, maintenance of (heir interests, But wo do oomplain that t|iey ire utterly unscrupulous in the' methods they adopt, At'the "very outset they attempted to stuff the burgess roll in the most shameltss manner, The pre- ' vention of this involved tbe Borough Council in heavy legal expenses, as llie matter hid to jo 'Wore the Supreme Court; and their last proceedings make manifest tjie fact tfiaf they are still ruling on'jimilar lines, No man in Ohristchurch khow better than Mr Cowlishaw; who,'whilst he is 0110 oftlie leading solipiforj jh Christ' okurch, at the same time holds between £IO,OOO and £15,000 worth of

shares in Manning's brewory, that we intended to carry tho last Suoremo Court judgment to the Court of Appe»l, and yet the Press telegrams show that, in company with representatives of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, ho waited on the Premier and endeavored to secure our instant removal from office on tho representation that we did notmean to go to the Appellato Court, and wero instian aotion against the publicans that we never even contemplated. What is the feoling of the commtinily of Sydenham at the present time ? That, I think, is indicated by the foot tli4 already 8,000 signatures of adults have boon secured for the petition asking the Govoroor not to interfere to remove us from office, Upon the usuil calculation of threrflftlm of a population being children, there are only left about onu thousand adults who have not signed that petition. Wo are confident that had we to go to tho poll to-morrow we should bo reinstated by a larger majority than ever, (To be Conlinvcd next Muriatj.)