LICENSE OR NO-LICENSE.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12364, 30 November 1905, Page 9

LICENSE OR NO-LICENSE.

Sir,—That k tile queetioa wiick ;•*•'■■ pnesnt is creatine so mudi divotwe opicion.' For years 1 have.argued and voted .retention of l.oense, on grounds of personal freedom and. liberty, but the light which hae been thrown on the . working of license has at last ehxMii it to be intolerable and disgusting. Intolerable inasmuch that we, as en intelligent /and progressive community, oppose all forms ob monopolies. Laoonse under the present system has become • huga monopoly; owing, partly, to the inadequacy of the law t<> prohibit "Ued houcos." Notwithstanding the Act forbiading the same, the brewers and wine merchants, doxtexouely evade it, and thereby wax fat on the exorbitant price ol beer, etc., which is* extorted rrom the public, to enable the licensee to pay a fabulous rental. • Tiie methods of the licensee (who. w in some cases "a monthly tenant) , are disgusting. In the first place he ie not a bona nae merohant who imports, buye, end sells the beet stuff to the ooneumer, but -ie forced to buy and sell whatever ; th« lamllord gives ihim. The following will describe some of. the tactics aro p.actked on the truetful consumer :— At c certain hotel - I ndvjjed the lioersoe to procure some , —- whisky, a noted brand of bettoc class hqucr, which ie more expensive than otner brands. The next visit J paid tiiie place I was supplied with the di-eired bmnd. I recoonmended thie whisky to two friencts, .vho, with niveolt, alter a few viMte, had suspicions that the bottle was being re-filkd with some of the licensee's own blend, and therefore we marked the bottle. For two months this same bottle wae religiously placed before us, until at last th» labol" became so dilapidated that it wa» replaoed by auother fresh. bottle. The above are a few'oi the reasons why my friends and myself are prepared to vot* "No-licenie" and, if pceside. wipe out of existence euch unscrupulous publicacs.—Youra, etc., MODERATE