THE ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING.

Evening Star, Issue 7226, 31 May 1887, Page 2

THE ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING.

TO THK fejTQK. Sir,—Doubtless the amount of excitement now existing 'over matters political tends in a large measure to distract publio attention from matters of seeming, less importance, though really more nearly affecting our welfare; and

this perhaps is the reason why bo little notiee b being taken of the attempt to foist two new licenses upon the City. That the sobriety of tike people is one of the raaiu elements necessary to national prosperity is admitted by all. Glome time ago the most eminent financier England has ever had, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, ■ Raid in a speech: " Give me thirty millions of sober inhabitants, aud the revenue can look after itself;" and our politicians would do well to lay this saying to heart. Can anyone doubt that the granting of these two new licenses would materially increase the temptation to drink, and so help to demoralise the districts in which they are situated ? Can anyone who knows anything of the neighbor' hood in which these houses are situated say that theie is any necessity for them ? In each case, within a hundred yards of the proposed hotel there are four or five other hotels, and surely these should be enough for the most thirsty soul, unless every moderate drinker is to have a hotel at his back door, so that he may not suffer the shame of being seen to go in and out whenever he wants to indulge. The recent developeroent of affairs in the case of Keast and M'Cartby, showing that the public are awakening to the necessity of withdrawing their patronage from the publican and bestowing it upon more worthy objects, and the well-known mannei in which the majority of the hotels are run by the brewers, witn. dummies for licensees, should be sufficient to decide the Committee to refuse these new applications. It is a great pity that any agitation should be needed on this subject. We ought to have implicit confidence that the public interest would be the paramount consideration with Committee; but our experience of how these matters have been worked in the past leads us to fear that the interest of the liquor traffic, to which the Committee owe their election, will have the greater influence in the decision of some. I trust, however, that those who profeea to be untrammelled and unprejudiced will, on this occasion, act out their sentiments and refuse these applications.—l am, etc., LIQHT, Dunrdin, May 30.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sib,—"House Agent," in your columns of this evening, on the whole fairly stated why I refused to allow him to sign the petition against the hotel license being removed from King street to the corner of Castle and St. Andrew streets. He might have added that the petition I had for signature was only for those who resided, or own property, in the immediateitaeighborhood, which I explained to him and several others, was Castle street, between Stuait and Hanover streets, and St. Andiew street, between Leith and Cumberland streets. Every signature (78) appended is that of a resident or property owner within those boundaries excepting one, and there are the best of reasons why there should be this exception. " House Agent" goes on to state that the license, if granted, will affect him more than me, as I am a teetotaller. Sir, I am a teetotaller, and the license, if granted, I don't think will make me a drinker. But I have no wish to have temptation thrust in the way of my children, nor to have them accustomed to, the scenes that drink-shops engender. Many of the worst drinkers of to-day were the happy innocent children of yesterday—somebody's boys, somebody's girls, as much beloved as my own, no doubt just as good, bat the temptation of the drink-shop hag been too much for them. What right have I to assume that my children, will be above the temptations that have hem the ruin of many of brighter intellect than they possess ? If I did not oppose this proposed drinjc shop, I should deserve to'suffer, as no doubt I should. lam not alone in feeling my responsibility in this matter, for nittVtenths of those I waited upon for their signatures signed, and I only met two who deßire that the license should be granted. One of these said he would sign for every house in the City to have a license, as it would decrease drunkenness; the other that the teetotallers of the neighborhood gave him no oustom, and he felt sure the hotel would, No wonder house agents desire to keep drink-shops at a distance from property they are interested in, if their experience is anything like the extract I append from a Home paper, dated February 10,1887, which kindly insert at foot of this, and oblige—Yours, eta, A. 0. Bboad.. Dunedin, May 3L

Some twenty years ago a large portion of land in the south o! Liverpool, belonging to the Earl of Sefton, was laid oat (or building purposes by the firm of which Hr John Robert?, M.P. for Flint Borough*, is now the head. la all the building leases on this estate there is a clause absolutely prohibiting the ea'e of liquor on the ground. A large and populous new town has in the meantime sprung up on this area, whloh is, speaking generally, coterminous with the Parliamentary division of East Toxteth, formed by the recent Redistribution Act, and represented in Parliament by Baron H. de Worms, Undersecretary of the Board of Trade. What are the (acta as to this prohibited district? 1. la the first place, as soon as the houses wore completed the peop'e rushed fto occupy them, although the rents are higher than for similar property In districts where public-houses abound,' the occupants well knowing that they would have to travel long distances if they wanted to purchase liquor. Tha nearest approach to "civil war" in this community was when a benevolent brewer wished to obtain a lioense on the borders of the prohibited area, and the people rose en mange and orowded the Licensing pourt to oppoße the granting of this lioense. 2. As formerly a guardian of the poor and oyerseer, I speak that I know in saying that upon this local option area, with a population of over 60,000, there is hardly a pauper; and while the poor rate* before Prohibition came into operation in the parish was 2s 6d in the £, it is now 10d, though the bulk tif the inhabitants are of the working class. S. The health of the distiict is excellent, very (ew cases of infectious disease occurring, and the deathrate is very low. T&e police have very little trouM? in the distrlot, and the Board schools are well attended and efßoient; and last, though not least places of worship of all denominations abound', ana are better attended than in most places. ' ' I might enlarge as to details, but what I want to know is this: If the ground landlord, at his sole will and pleasure, can thus prohibit the sale of liquor In a population of 60,000 or more, what can be the objection to (riving a majority of the inhabitants the same power?— Yours truly, E. Jones. Liverpool.

TO THE EDITOB.

SrR t —l ask permission to appeal, through fhe medium of the Evening Stab, to the Liqenßinlf Committee urging them to refuse the removal of license from Great King street to Cattle street. I reside in the immediate neighborhood of the house proposed to be licensed, and' can assure those gentlemen that it is not required, and'that a large majority of the residents are strongly opposed to H. • '' I trust the Committee will refuse to license a, house where we feel assured it would be an injury to property-holders in this district. —I am, etc., Anothsb Resident. Dunedin, May 30. '