THE LICENSING ISSUE.

Evening Star, Issue 19723, 25 November 1927, Page 4

THE LICENSING ISSUE.

, to Ttm EOITOtt.

Sir, —Before replying to “ Liberty’s ” letter in to-night's ‘ Star,’ 1 would like to inform him that 1 havo never had any interest financially in the liquor trade, and that also 1 consider myself a moderate drinker—i.o., I thoroughly enjoy, after work at night, dropping in and having; a couple of “spots” at an hotel, and few men i claim fee! more pity than 1 do for any poor fellow who has had more than he ought. While on that subject—really a side issue—l would like to ask “Liberty” why he condemns: the liquor traffic iu New Zealand as “ monstrous”? Surely lie lets his pen run away with him there. - Apart from the years of tho war I have seen a good slice of this globe, and at the risk of startling “Liberty” 1 assert, without fear of any reasonable contradiction, that excepting the No-license areas we are one of the soberest and most temperate of His Majesty’s dominions beyond tho seas. Taking Dunedin as a fair average sample of New Zealand towns, let “Liberty” go for a stroll down Princes street from the old Post Office to Frederick street-at 6 p.m., and note how-fliiany men ho will see under the influence of liquor. It will bo a. most astonishing few, and that out of a population of 70,000 to 80,000. Vet he and his fellow “Drys” would deprive fqrty-nine out of every 100 of the electors of the right to refresh themselves as they see lit, just because an infinitesimal number of silly idiots can’t say no when they should. Boiled down, they desire to force Prohibition on over a million and a-quarter temperate people because possibly about half of one per cent, of the population drink to excess. It seems rather an altruistic scheme to me. However, I note that my challenge as to enforcement of' Prohibition has been merely generalised on, and I am set an examination paper with all the questions neatly numbered. This, I presume, must indicate in “Liberty’ an Irish origin, on the principle to answer a question, ask another. I will do my best, but before doing so let me most earnestly and solemnly assure “Liberty” that 1 have prophesied no wholly imaginary eventuality, and unless ho is wholly blinded by his “dry ” convictions, as a morally honorable man he must admit that a dry New Zealand would mean a repetition of America’s “Rum Bow” and all its attendant horrors in our couatoy. Now to the examination. Question 1 implies that my statement that the law abiding drinker of Now Zealand would not say no to a “ bootlegger ” is an insult to my fellow “ long yiveurs,”, as by saving yes they would break the law. Some years ago the Government declared all bookmakers excommunicate, and also all members of the public who did business with thorn, and then sat back with a knowing grin, as much as to say; “ That’ll corner you, me lads.” Did it? The bookmaker flqarisheth as the green bay tree iu ever-increasing numbers, and the still greener punter, despite one or two getting fined, still insists on backing his fancy. That is breaking tbo law just as flagrantly ns patronising a bootlegger, yet “Liberty” would hardly condemn as a criminal any friend of his who had slipped a fiver on with Mr M'Shortodds on Great Bingen to win the hurdles at Forbury. No. 2 question 1 have already answered in my previous letters, but would add that the price realised by forced sale of second-hand rum-run-ning boats would be • negligible, and their cargoes being tipped overboard would thus produce nothing. No. 3: I. have submitted, this to several friends for interpretation, and I must ask “Liberty” to put it a Tittle plainer. No. 4: Any action having to be done clandestinely has a more evil effect than one done openly, and I honestly believe that the so-called evils of the liquor trade as at present are_ to he preferred to those that would arise with bootlegging and all its multitudinous attendant fellow-crimes (vide reports from the United States). In conclusion, I would like to add that it is hardly cricket for “Liberty” to club my challenge to his confreres as invisible Vapor. Invisible or not, I note that he has gone to considerable length in trying to dissipate it. Finally, I started the questions, and now I cal! on “ Liberty,” having taken up the “ dry ” cudgels, to answer my original statement.—l am, etc., ?. S. H ILL. November 23.