SAVE ME FROM MY FRIENDS.

Evening Star, Issue 12872, 23 July 1906, Page 2

SAVE ME FROM MY FRIENDS.

TO THE EOITOR, Sff, —On July 12 I addressed through your columns an open letter to Mr Dmmstm and his associates in the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, in which I showed the only logical reasoning possible in relation to tho admitted fact that “to serve women at a hotel bar brought disgrace and contempt” upon “the trade.” In this letter I pointed out that if to allow a, woman to stay for a few' moments at. one side of a counter purchasing an article in a perffictly legal way brought disgrace and contempt upon the sellers, surely it- would much more bring disgrace and contempt upon these people to keep young unmarried women in this very same place and atmosphere for many hours a day. .1 again repeat this, and again call upon the Licensed Victuallers’ Association to give up the employment of barmaids, which, on their own reasoning, brings disgrace and contempt upon their business. While no representative of the Association dares (o tackle the problem over his own name, several writers over nom-de-plumes have rushed in to try to soften the blow by declaring that the women -spoken of were “of a certain class.” The position taken by these would-be helpers will surely cans© the liqnor trade of this City to exclaim Save me from my friends! I have already challenged the h.VJL and Mr Thomson to declare that tho women spoken of were of a certain class, and that decent women are welcome at their bars, but they are possessed of a sudden desire to “ lay low and say nuffin.” This is very unusual on Air Thomson's part. The latest unknown defender to enter the lists is “ Anti-No--1 icons®.” He beads his letter ‘The Ignorance of Mr Bernard Nicbolls.’ This has a Thomsonian air, and also smacks of “no i-iiso, abuse the other side.” However, I have a good case, so need not resort to abuse. “ Anti-No-license ” says ; Mr Thomson did not say lie saw twenty women drinking, but that he saw “some” women drinking. The actual words were: “He saw about twenty women enter a hotel in less than twenty minutes at a side door, when be went in he saw them drinking liquor.” “Them,” sir, is the twenty. The L.V.A. ought to abolish side doors. As it docs not seem to he intended to declare that women in general will be allowed to drink at bars, I have only to say, in conclusion, that the L.V.A. are here applying to the women the very principle tbey denounce us for applying to the men— Le, punishing the many innocent for the Wrqng-dodng of the few. Because a few women get drunk all tho women ©re to be deprived of the right to drink at bars. I am glad, again, to receive the support of the L.V.A. -to this, our main proposition. Although their acceptance of this lino of reasoning is the selfish one of selfpreservation, it is still pleasant to see that they are able to accept and apply the argument we have so long urged—namely, that when public morality and decency are in question the convenience of the many must give way before the injury to tho few. —1 am, etc., G. B. Nicholls. P.S.—“The trade” arc very angry that the whole business should bo condemned, is they say, because a few licensees are bad ind will not join the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. Unless they refrain from punishing the decent women because of the few drunkards, how can they complain if the public apply the same reasoning to “the trade”?—G.B.N.