NO-LICENSE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 198, 19 August 1908, Page 8

NO-LICENSE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —With reference to the letter of Mr Thomas Walsh, which was published in your issue of the 12th inst., the writer asked mc to explain why Clutha has not restored licenses. I think, Sir, any further explanation on that phase would be superfluous, seeing that it was dealt with by your correspondent, Mr Palmer, in your issue of the 14th inst. The rest of Mr. Walsh's letter is simply a mass of repetition and twaddle, such as we are accustomed to hear and read, that it really calls for no comment at my hands. With regard to Mr Vowles' allusion to Mr Geo. Harnett's famous statements, it is quite clear to mc that the truth with regard to the operation of No-license in Invercargill is distasteful to Mr Yowles, and I, with many others, consider that Mr Harnett's action in exposing and corroborating such exposure by cable from Australia should be commended. It is well-known that Mr Harnett is a middle-aged, independent gentleman, who has had considerable experience of different countries, and his opinion, therefore, is a perfectly unbiased one.—l am, etc., P. ROSS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In addition to the splendid results of No-license in Clutha, Ashburton, Mataura, Grey Lynn. Invercargill and Oamaru, I wish to direct Mr. Palmer's attention to the fact that Auckland city has itself fully demonstrated the benefits of No-lieensc Anyone comparing the one day of No-license (Sunday) which we now enjoy, with any one of the 6 days of license must, unless he is blinded by vested interests or personal habit, come to the conclusion that Sunday closing of the liquor bars is good enough to justify the appeal to give No-license a similar trial on the other 6 days of the week, What would be the result of the open bars on Sunday? What have been the benefits resulting from their being closed? Had the bars been closed last week, the brutal patrols of the American fleet would have been unnecessary, and many of our guests would have been saved sore heads.—Yours, etc. W.J. MACDERMOTT. (To th-2 Kdltor.) Sir, —f must first of all congratulate Mr J. S. Palmer for the splendid case he has made for No-license in Clutha. It was simply immense. The reason given why Clutha goes for No-license excited my risibilities and stamps Mr Palmer as a joker of the first water; but the closing sentence caps all. The argument reduced is this: If No-license in Clutha has been such n crowning success, why has the percentage of votes cast for restoration gradually dwindled down every poll until in 1905 it was only 37 per cent, of those cast; exactly what we ask — why, indeed? It ill becomes Mr Palmer to quote Bruce and Newtown as going back on No-license when, as a. matter of fact, owing to the scandalous way tho victories of 1902 were niched from the people on purely technical grounds, it was never given a fair trial; yet in 1905 Bruco was only five short of the threefifth majority, and Newtown very few more, so there is poor comfort here for Mr Palmer. The facts regarding Ashburton are unique as well as indisputable. Ashburton has a club several hundreds strong, which, in 1901, according to bal-, ance-sheet, spent £3448 on liquor as against £50 on the library, and it was an admitted fact in order to secure the monopoly of liquor-selling in the district, in 1902 many members went for Nolicon6e, but when the altered law placed club and hotel licenses on the same footing, they reversed their action in 1905 to regain the license, hence the result. (See page 21G No-license Handbook.) Mr Palmer appears to think that by referring to southern No-license areas we aro to a great extent not minding our own business, so let us reverse things and pertinently ask what about the dismal failure of license in Auckland. How about the evidences of its failure last week and every week? The order during the week on the whole was good; yet what a miserable failure the liquor traffic proved itself to be. How many mothers' hearts in the States would have ached had they seen their laddies in Queenstreet during the week, and that notwithstanding the Admiral's request?—l am, etc, CHARLES A. FRENCH. Grey Lynn. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In a recent issue of the "Star," I raised the question "Why didn't Clutha restore licenses if the No-license system was a failure?" Mr. Palmer, in his generosity, has published a simple answer, to my mind a little too simple. He says that the sly-grog sellers held the balance of power, and used it to prevent the restoration of licenses. But who are the sly-grog sellers? In general, they are simply agents of brewers and wholesale liquor-sellers, and Mr. Palmer would have us believe that the brewers and wholesale liquor-dealers (alias sly-grog sellers) prevented the restoration of licenses, while it was an open secret that the brewers, etc.. have spent, and are spending, much labour and goodly sums of money in trying to influence voters in favour of restoration. To mc, this plea of Mr. Palmer's seems just as illogical as to say that the sly-grog sellers of Auckland determined the one day of Nolicense per week that we have here: since anyone who walks along our streets on Sunday knows that the slygrog seller must do a roaring trade, quite as profitable I should imagine as his counterpart in Clutha could hope to do on any day in the week. I imagine the reasons that prompted us to have one day of No-license per week were the reasons that induced Clutha to' have No-license every day in the week. Then as to 1459 votes being cast for License in Clutha in 1905, Mr. Palmer should have added that the No-license majority increased from less than 300 (i«, the year that No-license was carried) to over 1,000 in 1905. As to why 37 per cent voted for restoration, that percentage represents precisely what the liquor party, with all its resources, was able to do and 37 per cent, is a good deal short of the three-fifths majority. Then, as to the other districts failing to maintain the three-fifths majority, I can only say that the liquor party did not obtain the "necessary majority to restore license, consequently these areas must i;. justice be awarded as victories for No-license. As regards the success of No-license in the area adjacent to Auckland, my opinion, formed after a residence in that area, is that the said area is vastly preferable as a residential area to any licensed area in Auckland.—l am, etc. v. .. . T - WALSH.