BILLIARD SALOONS: A REPLY TO REV. J. J. NORTH.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 89, 14 April 1908, Page 7

BILLIARD SALOONS: A REPLY TO REV. J. J. NORTH.

TO THB EDITOB. Sir, — In your issue of yesterday (and also in xhat of the Dominion) there appeared a letter from the Rev. J. J. North in which he alleges (inter alia) that the solicitor for the Billiard Room Proprietors admitted at the City Council cil meeting that one firm of bookmakers in the city paid £8 per week rent for their saloon. The rev. gentleman also insinuates that another bookmakers' firm is the proprietor of a billiard saloon. I wish to deny the truth of both of these allegations. Firstly, I did say that and 's saloon (i.e. tho saloon commonly known as that of the bookmakers referred to) paid £8 10s per week rent, but, later on, in answer to a direct question by his Worship the Mayor, I stated precisely that this firm of bookmakers did not run tho saloon but held a lease of the saloon (and also adjoining shops and offices), arid that the saloon wa3 sublet to and was conducted by a gentlemanr whose name was given and who was present at the council meeting. This gentleman I may here mention was for 13 years past chief billiard-marker at the Wellington Club, and is well fitted in every respect 1 to conduct a billiard saloon in strict accordance with tho by-law, and moreover does do so. Secondly, it maw bo stated that the proprietor of the saloon which, according to tho Rev. Mr. North, is also run by a firm of bookmakers, occupies an exactly similar position. The head-leaso of tho saloon and adjoining offices its held by one member of the second firm of bookmakers, who, has sublet the saloon to the proprietor in whoso name (it may be mentioned) the license is issued. In neither case do the lessors (tho bookmakers) participate in tho takings of the saloon, but reecive only rent under the sub-lease. Perhaps Mr. North will deny the right of a bookmaker (whoso calling has, after all, a legal status) to hold property and to lease the same. I would also like to point out that tho game of "pool" (to the playing of which Mr. North objects so strongly) is expressly allowed under tho by-law to be played in licensed saloons. These aro tho main matters of fact which the rev. gentleman has so characteristically distorted. My senso of what is proper and dignified will not allow me to indulge in newspaper controversy with tho Rev J. J. North either on tho merits of the question at issue — the extension of the closing hour — or in regard to other matters of alleged fact which Mr. North has so wildly stated, or' will probably so state. Suffice it to say, irt conclusion, that if the Rev. Mr. North and his colleagues were imbued wiih a true zeal for the moral and social welfare of the youths and men of the city, they would, instead of rushing into print and deputationising and moralising on every conceivable pretext and subject, have long ago done, or, at least, attempted to do, something practical, such as to provide a cosmopolitan club run on democratic and up-to-date lines (with a billiard room in charge, say, of tho Rev. J. J. North), in which club tho youths and men of Wellington, who must have recreation and amusement, would be benefited morally, intellectually and -physically. There would then havo been no need for Mr. North's brilliant suggestion— the establishment of a municipal billiard saloon.— l am, etfc-> A. 11. CASEY. Wellington, 14th April, 1908.