MR G. B. NICHOLAS IN REPLY.

Evening Star, Issue 14001, 6 March 1909, Page 11

MR G. B. NICHOLAS IN REPLY.

TO THE EDITOIU Sir, —The ‘Evening Star’ has usually treated the No-license party with fairness, and personally I have been treated by you with courtesy. I therefore feel confident that you will publish the following in reply to your leader of Thursday last, in which, together with Dr De Lautonr, I am mentioned by name and our statements criticised. You find fault with me for saying that “ the Moderate candidates owed it to the people of Dunedin to give a sufficient reason for the waste of public money they weie causing by forcing an election .it this juncture.” For this I was ridicnled curd called impudent. Probably a fuller knowledge of the facts will cause you to alter your opinion. These facts are that, prior to March 1, 1906, a delegation from “ the trade,” comprising Mr William Thomson and others, met a delegation from the No-license party. This “ trade ” delegation wished to arrange a compromise, they to have two members nn the Committee as against our three. Our Committee knew perfectly well from experience that all transfers, etc., can be made by two members and the chairman, and these transactions are usually attended t.) by this small number. As “the trade” know for weeks beforehand when any transfer or other business is coming before the Committee, and we do not know, it would be easily possible for any particular matter to be engineered. At any rate, the arrangement proposed would have required the attendance of the whole other three of the No-license members to put through every small transaction, and so safeguard No-liconse interests and prevent jobbery. Because of the burden of this necessity our Committee very properly rciused to bo so caught, and the compromise was rejected. They were then assured by ‘‘the trade ” representatives that “ the trade ” were entirely satisfied with their administration, and there would be no contest. The prc}>osterou6 request was also put forward that they should not grant licenses to any person unless Mr William Thomson approved of the-applicant. As this proposal would have placed all applicants at the mercy of a certain clique it was also rejected. Alter this it was stated that there woi M be a meeting of the L.V.A., and that they would receive a letter confirming the fact that there would be no contest. The meeting of the L.V.A. duly came off, and our Committee received a letter, which is still in their possession. slating plainly that the publicans were oatistied with their administration, and that they would not be opposed. What was the amusement of the Committee, therefore, to find, when one of their number went fri hand in the nominations, that Mr Charles Speight was performing the same duty for the five gentlemen who are new again standing as ” Moderates,” and claiming not to be nominees of “ the trade.” The No-license party had nothing to fight for then, and were divided in opinion as to whether a committee ought to stand or not; hence the present Committee slipped in. I do not know whether the “ Moderates ” were aware of the very questionable tactics employed, but the whole performance was not creditable to those responsible. Now, why did Ibis Moderate Committee come forward at all? They could not surely claim that they would look after the hotels more strictly than the No-license team, and, moreover, “the trade” had expressed satisfaction with the fairness of tha No-liconse team. Where, then, came in tha necessity for this Moderate Committee? Clearly to lessen the severity of the administration. Had it not been for this unwarrantable and unnecessary intrusion of Messrs Arklc, Braithwaitc, and Co. three years ago, the Xo-licensc nominees would have dons the work the last three years at least as faithfully as tire Moderate Committee, and would have been the men in office and entitled to remain by reason of duty well done. 1 regret the length of this tale, but it is necessary to make the matter quite clear. It utterly destroys the ground taken by the ‘ Evening Star.’ and supports my assertion up to the hill. The position. then, now is that Messrs Arkle, Braithwaitc. and Co., having thrust themselves in whore they were not required three years ago, and cost the City £3OO needlessly, are determined now to again forte an election and cost the City another £3OO or £4OO, for no other purpose that can be deduced by any course of reasoning than to defeat the Reduction mandate of the people by failing to reduce ten licenses. Outside of this intention there is neither rhyme nor reason for their standing, as they cannot possibly pretend to be more efficient in fire escape supervision and oilier similar matters than the No-license nominees were and will be. Thus, by forcing these two elections they have wasted ax least £6OO of the municipal money for no practical purpose. In all other places we find the mayor and councillors doing their utmost to render those contested licensing elections needless in order to save the borough finance, but here in Dunedin, strange to say, \vc find the mayor and councillors busy forcing these elections on the people when there is no need for them at all. The “ Moderates ” declare that they will reduce any number from three tn ten. Why, then, do the Liquor party declare that they arc quite satisfied with them? If they arc to be believed, there is still a risk of ten licenses going. As regards the second point, I can dispose of the ‘ Evening .Star ’ in a few sentences. They ask with a fine scorn, “ How does Mr Nicholls or anyone else know that the voters for Reduction at the Local Option poll anticipated the adoption of the maximum rate?” The reason whv.l, and everybody else, know that" the people anticipated and desired the full 25 per cent, reduction is this : That no fewer than 10,130 people struck out the top line, thus voting for both Reduction and Noli cense. Tn other words, the vote cast by these 10,130 people was that all licenses should be refused, or failing that that the full 25 per cent, should be refused. As only 8,772 people voted G’-onti nuance altogether, this leaves a handsome majority over Continuance of those who desire at least the whole 25 per cent, reduction, and more if they can get it. These are the answers to the two point-, on which I personally was criticised, and it seems to me that my answers are full and complete.—l am, etc. ~ G. B. Nicholls. March 5.