NICE POINTS IN ETHICS. COUNTER-LUNCH v. RESTAURANT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 18, 21 July 1909, Page 3

NICE POINTS IN ETHICS. COUNTER-LUNCH v. RESTAURANT.

'some quaint argument. "I don't mind the pubs putting on a snack," said the sixpenny restaurateur. "I'm not protesting against biscuits and cheese and trifles like thab to keep a pint of beer company at no extra charge, but I'm against the straight-out, standup meal. I don't think the publicans' licenses entitle them to compete unfairly j with us. Why should a man be fiUed with beef for nothing when he deposits fourpence or sixpence for a pewter? I believe in : 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' Let the poor man have his beer at the pub, but let us have a chance of making a living by selling him a good meal for tixpeuce. What would the publicans be thinking of us if ive threw in a free long beer with our sixpenny meals?" The complainant said that he and his brethren were thinking of "deputating," noDi to the Acting-Premier, but to the Licensed Victuallers' Association. *In the speaker's vision of -justice the shoulder of mutton, the ribsoles, the saveloys, the beef sandwiches, and all those other toothsome solids dear to the counter-luncher will utterly vanish, and the liquidator of foxirpenee or sixpence will Tiave nothing softer to nibble than the rim of his tankard. A shilling "universal provider" took a different viewpoint. He did not think that the counter-lunch affected him. It was obvious thab he felt bhat the -class of business which hv> did put him on a different plane; it was apparent that he did not believe his clients were of a kind to let a bit of counter-lunch stand •between them and a square meal. "But if I was in the. sixpenny business, I'd squeal pretty loud," he declared, and he confessed that the free food put on by some hotels in the evenings "cut in" to the supper trade of the shilling and eighteenpenny establishments. •In the daytime 'he could smile serenely at all the counter-lunching, but at night it was a different matter. His sympathies were rather with* the hungry counter-lunchers by day ; but at night — well, it was a different type, not a needy type, of counter-lunch at- night, and these bar snacks just before the hotels closed lessened the demand for the Stewartoyster and the omelette, tho flounder and the grilled steak. A ninepenny caterer was al&o rather philosophic about the counter-lunch. In his opinion, the restaurants would not appreciably profit by the prohibition of free nourishment in the bars. In his opinion, most of the men concerned would not be prepared to spend more than sixpence on provender (liquid or solid) in the middle of the day. If they hadi their choice between a "lash at a pint and a cut at a joint," he contended, they would, prefer the pint. The eating-houses mighb serve a few extra customers if the counter-lunch was wiped out, but he did not think that the gain would be worth the bother. In Dunedin, the counter-luncli came under review long ago ; but not for the reasons advanced by sixpenny restaurateurs in Wellington. The lunch was attacked because it was regarded as an undue attraction to the bars, and the (Licensing Committee was asked to intervene It is understood that an edict went forth prescribing very eevere limitations' on the free ''side lines" «f the bars.