THE DRINK TRAFFIC.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2778, 3 May 1890, Page 2

THE DRINK TRAFFIC.

TO TUB KDITOK. Sm,--1 do not suppose for a moment that any individual views whether those of the total abstainers or others will have much effect on the decision of the Committee in reference to the license of the Royal Hotel,

and very rightly so, too. Those gentlemen who compose the committee may be trusted to do what is fair and right without outside pressure, or they would not be fit for the position they occcupy. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from expressing my opinion, and I venture to believe that it is the opinion of tho majority of those not blinded by prejudice. If your correspondents were arguing in the interest of a monopoly, instead as they avow in the interest ot total abstinence I could understand them. I would ask "Total Abstainer" if he honestly believes that the closing of one or even two of the hotels in Hamilton would decrease the consumption of liquor to any appreciable extent — personally, I don't think it would make the difference of a glass a year. As to the financial results as legards the owners, 1 fail to sos what the committee have to do with that. The fact that the hotel has existed for the last 25 years and that the present owners consider it wise to build a new house should be evidence enough for the committee on that head. Personally I consider it a healthy sign, showing that outsiders have better faith in the future prospects of the town than those who live in it, and who are apparently content to drag out a miserable existence, with no better ambition than to qualify their town as a cow run. Your correspondent " Total Abstainer," in a most unwarrantable manner lugs the church into the controversy. He commences by asking why certain of the clergy were not present at Mr Glover's temperance lecture, and draws odious comparisons between recognized denominations and the salvation rable. Without making myself responsible for any auswer " Echo" may choose to make upon the occasion, I will answer that the gentlemen iu question were probably better employed, or if they were not, more shame to them, or possibly they had been there before, and did not wish to suffer a repetition of the isnorant balderdash given utterance to by the lecturer. "Total Abstainer" considers that two hotels would be ample for the requirements of the 1,000 inhabitants af Hamilton. Why does he not continue and say that there are too many butchers, bakers, grocers, too many tradesmen generally, too many cows and horses (by the bye, it is rather a one horse town if you don't count the horses on the streets), too many parsons and too many churches. And it is something more than a moot point in the minds of many,

that on the broad question of public utility the pub hasnota big advantageof thechurch, chapel, or Salvation Army Barracks. It is certainly not such a tax on the community, and is a source of revenue to the town, while the others do not even pay rates. It would certainly be a libel on any of the Hamilton pubs if they were accused of half the rowdyism carried on at a Salvation Army meeting. It is possible for a lady to pass any of them without being jossled off the footpath, and subjected to annoyance by larrikins of both sexes, and that is saying more than you can for the " Barracks." In conclusion I venture to hope that none of the churches your correspondent mentions will descend to take the action he would wish, either in the interests of Total Abstainers or of Publican Monopolists.—l am, yours etc., Iconoclast,