Ponsonby, February 22, 1901.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 47, 25 February 1901, Page 2

Ponsonby, February 22, 1901.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—When I first heard of the decision of the Reception Committee to allow the troops no beur (as provided by Government; with their lunch, I felt they had made a mistake, and were not at all likely to further the cause of Prohibition in Auckland by their action, and my reasons are as follows:—lst. As the men were to have the beer, it would have done them less harm to have consumed it with their lunch. 2nd. After a hot dusty march of nearly- two miles, standing a considerable time on arrival at the Domain in the broiling hot sun, and listening- to a few dry speeches (inevitable, I suppose), the men would be and were naturally very thirsty, and too dry to enjoy any lunch without a drink that the majority of them would care for, and many of them doubtless accustomed to. 3rd. Prohibition or temperance is hindered and not helped by attempting- to enforce 4t in such a manner, and at such a time. 4th. They were our guests, and our business was to cater as far as possible for their enjoyment in reason, and if a pint or even two, of beer would add to their comfort, it were foolish and wrong to deny them that comfort. Again, Sir, supposing the majority of the committee had been composed of those in favour of liquor, what would we of the Prohibition patty have said if they had decided to have absolutely no drinks but of an intoxicating nature in the luncheon booth? Fairness, common sense, and a consideration for the opinions of others, would help our cause r'ar more than any highhanded action such as the one abovementioned.—l am, etc., . PROHIBITIONIST.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr F. 11. Wilson need not have told us In his wonderful letter in Friday's issue that he hud a hobby for '•analysis of figures.". Some people arc wonderfully gifted, but to analyse figures Requires a special gift, and of course Mr Wilson has it. After rending it one is tempted to analyse his motives in so analysing the figures as to convey- mls.eadlng conclusions. It is noticeable that the result of his analysis is "gratifying"' to him. One would have thought and expected him to say he was distressed, or astonished, or disappointed, or grieved at. such a discovery. But no; ho Is,gratified, more than gratified, by the study of the ligures presented, Mr Wilson is evidently distressed and indeed disconsolate that the committee decided not to offer the soldiers beer, and yet he in the sri'mi! sentence, assures us that their action has been a source of endless amusement and cynicism to others. (These ought to send in a speciul subscription for the long entertainment). 1 notice, and it is very remarkable, that these excellent critics of the committee miver stop to consider what, sort of beer ought to have been provided—not hup or ginger, or i^ny of these, of course, but bitter beer, lager beer, bottled ale. Imported or colonial beer does not signify, but It must be alcoholic. But this is just where the highest authorities In military mutters differ from our critics, and one would expect that some degree of modesty would prevent. them expressing themselves m contemptuously about the committee, who .ventured to take the^adviee of high authority. Mr Wilson is not at all happy in his; analysis of the figures. To begin with, ho assumes (with a confidence most extraordinary) that £11 17/0 is all that was contributed by ihe 32 who voted for the exclusion of beer. I wonder he did not analyse the other set of figures on the same lino. It would have been a surprise to him, mid perhaps equally gratifying. Mr W. must know, after the care he has taken, that a large ninount was gtven anonymously. It is all very well for these people who would not move hand or foot in this affair (only to find fault) to complain of the laxity of the people. 1 will undertake, however, to prove if need be that the 32 noble fellows who decided to follow the noble advice of the authorities gave twice as much an the opposing members, and that some of the names quoted us giving nothing gave more than those critics who so meanly complain whilst doing nothing. It Is not bo well known as it should be that one firm alone on our side gave substantial refreshments to the volunteers who were neglected by the Government, although the commanding oftieer assured the committee that eveVything was provided. This was stated in reply to an earnest appeal by Mr R. K. Hunt for provision to be made. Mr Wilson' ought to know that the generous, response of the public to the appeal of the committee was the result largely of their decision In this matter. The public generally have no confidence in men who get up entertainmenta to demoralise the people. I know many persons who awaited the result of the discussion to send in their contribntlons t and the order of the magnificent assembly was largely assured by the knowledge that intoxicants were not allowed.

Mr W. and others sneer at the wise geueroslty of men who offered at their own expense the choicest fruit instead of liquor. It wonld be more seemly if, these people would emulate their example, even whilst differing In judgment. All honour to ffua-

rantors who assured the success of the en. tertuiuiiu.'Ht, iind to the :;-J noble fellows who vetoed-the beer.—l am, etc., W. Si'EDDIXO.