INVERCARGILL & RESTORATION

Evening Star, Issue 20022, 13 November 1928, Page 3

INVERCARGILL & RESTORATION

A KEEN FIGHT SOME SIGNIFICANT TACTICS A question which .is stirring Invercargill during the campaign quite ns much as the success of Sir Joseph Ward on the political side is that of Restoration of Licenses in that district. The position in that town under Nolicensc is so. familiar that only the briefest outline is necessary as a reminder. Within very easy rail and motoring distance is Wallacetown, just outside the No-license boundary, 'two hotels aro there, and they share a monopoly in respect of catering tor the “ cash-and-carry ” branch of Invercargill’s liquor custom. It appears that, though the Prohibitionists' profess to disbelieve the accounts of the failure of Prohibition in the United Stater, they are not above using what suits them in the reports, particularly the enthusiasm of the “ bootleggers ” for the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and lor the Volstead Act. Adversity breeds strange bedfellows. It seems that Prohibition workers, reasoning from the American analogy, thought that an appeal to avarice might bring to their side unaccustomed allies to light against Restoration. The 1 Southland Daily News’ of last Saturday contained the following item:— “ It is authoritatively stated that a very prominent Prohibitionist called on the manager of the Wallacetown Junction Hotel and the proprietor of tho Wallacetown Hotel, and asked for funds to pay for advertisements to fight tho Restoration movement, as Restoration would be against their interests. In both cases the gentlemen approached indignantly refused to consider tho question, and one of them handed tho canvasser his hat and told him to get off his premises.”

This statement has elicited the following official disclaimer to the same paper from tho Prohibition Party, tho letter to tho editor being signed by Messrs J. S. Baxter and L, Gordon Bradley, president and secretary respectively of the Southland area of the New Zealand Alliance:—

" A statement is in circulation Unit someone solicited money I'rom the Trade in order to fight Restoration. If this was done, it was entirely without the knowledge or approval of any member of the executive of tho New Zealand Alliance. Tho Alliance has never received, nor would it us a matter of principlamccept one penny from those interested in tho liquor trade.”

in yesterday’s issue ot tho "Southland . Daily News ' there appeared a letter signed by “ Ono of tho 271 Business Men,” who have formed themselves into a committee to fight fur Itestoration. Tho writer states in reference to the above disclaimer of Messrs Baxter and Bradley: “ Here we have a most active member of the Prohibition Party calling on licensed hotelkeepers and asking for their financial support to fight tho itestoration movement in Invercargill. . . Money obtained from 1 Boose.’ ‘ Unclean iMoney ’ to fight their cause. . . . They may call it ‘ unclean money ’ if they like, but it was clean enough for them to go after. Do Mr Baxter and tho rest of his crowd expect the electors to accept his denial? If he and his camp followers had been possessed of ordinary common courtesy towards their opponents in this movement, then-perhaps his denial might have carried some weight.” Another letter in the samo issue of the ‘ Southland Daily News,’ signed ‘‘Mr Going,” stated, inter alia; “The Prohibition Party state that, if a prominent Prohibitionist called on tho proprietors of tho two Walla cotown hotels for a donation to the Pror hibition funds, it was done without'the knowledge of the New Zeaand Alliance. I suppose it was. The Alliance bus headquarters in Wellington. Baxter and Co. control Invercargill, and know too well what is being done hero, fn order that there can bo no misunderstanding it should be made known that the canvasser of funds referred to above gave his name as Mr Gumming. Mr R. J. Gumming was a few days ago endeavouring to get as many as possible of Mr Baxter’s much-boasted of 150 to again sign his manifesto. Yet Mr J. S. Baxter pleads ignorance of the identity of the man who endeavoured to seek alms for the cause from the ‘ slimy hands of tho booze trade.’ Three cheers lor tho innocent Prohibitionists; and so say nil of us. . . . hi justice to Air Gumming it should be mentioned that bo did not ‘shout’ at Wallacetown, or even have ‘ one on' his own ’ to cheer him upon bis disappointing mission.”