Page 7 Advertisements Column 2

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXII, Issue LXII, 23 November 1911, Page 7

(1) AS TO BAjfKRUPTCiIS AT MASTJ&TON. At Patea the lecturer asserted that the bankruptcies were as follows: 1906, Licence, 9; 1907, License, 11 j in 1908, 27; in 1909, 27; in 1910, 24;. and three months of 191 L, 10. He asserted that the bankruptcies had increased' since Nolicense. He did not state that the actual facts were that the last full year under License was 1908, when the number of bankruptcies was 19; and that in the next year (which was half under License and half under No-license), the bankruptcies were 13, and in the last year. 1910, the bankruptcies were 11. He also did not state how many of the ten bankruptcies in the first three months, of 1911 occurred in Masterton electorate, and how many occurred in other parts of the Wairarapa outside Masterton electorate. He also did not state that for the last six months of license 16 bankruptcies were filed in the District Court and were LOCAL bankruptcies, i.e., within the Masterton Electoral District, whereas for the first six months of 1911 the total bankruptcies in the whole of the Wairarapa District was only 12. I asked him if he.was aware that the small number of bankruptcies before 1909, with the exception of 1908, which was also a License year, when the number was 19, was due to the fact that there was a District Court at Masterton arid only local bankruptcies were filed there; but that after July 1, 1909, a Supreme Court was established at Masterton. and from that date all bankruptcies IN THE WHOLE OF THE WAIRARAPA DISTRICT were filed at Masterton, which, of course, made a very great difference. I also asked him if" he knew that since the District Courts were abolished (namely July 1, 1909), there had been 100 bankruptcies filed in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth for the Taranaki District for the two years ending July 1, 1911, and that during the same period only 51 bankruptcies were filed at'Masterton. The lecturer shirked responsibility by stating that he had the authority of the newspaper, but I contend that no man has a right to repeat any incorrect statement even although it has been published in a newspaper, "and that if he did he was responsible as well as the newspaper, and that he has no right to shelter himself behind a newspaper. In'comparing the bankruptcies filed .at New Plymouth with those filed at Masterton. lam not so foolish as to infer that Taranaki is not as sound as the Wairarapa; as there is a larger population in Taranaki than in their Wairarapa'; but what I do say is that the numbers, namely 100 for Taranaki and 51 for Wairarapa, I show very clearly that Masterton is in a sound position, and that these figures do not in any way bear out the assertion made by the liquor party that Masterton is in a rotten condition. (2) RE CALEDONIAN SOCIETY AT MASTERTON. The lecturer also said at Patea that Masterton was in such a poor condition Under No-License that the CALEDONIAN SOCIETY' at its annual gathering had a loss of £61. Reference was made to the telegram which appeared in the newspapers from the Caledonian Society at Masterton absolutely denying the statement and stating that the position was exactly the reverse. Mr Maguire declined to accept this telegram unless the Society issued a writ of libel against the newspaper. This is certainly most absurd. I then challenged him to test the question, and that, £20 should be deposited by each side and that whichever was successful the money should go to the Hawera Hospital. He got nut of it by stating that he never made bets. In this connection, strange as it may appear to some, it did not strike me that my challenge could have been construed as a bet and I contend strongly it does 'not, as in any case, whether I was right or wrong, I would not gain ; one penny. But after consideration I frankly admit it would have been better to have avoided the least appearance of < evil, and not to have given even an occasion to anyone to make- a charge ', against me that I encouraged betting, as everyone knows I have a strong objection to betting in every shape and form; and so I am prepared to alter the form of my challenge to read that whichever is wrong shall publish an apology in your newspaper at his own cost. WILL MR MAGUJRE ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE? (3) RE INVEROARGILL MANIFESTO Mr Maguire referred to the fact that ! 154 business men in Invercargill had signed a manifesto strongly in favour pf No-Licens©, but at Patea threw ridicule upon tHis by saying "What was 154 out of a total population of 12,000, and that it was a silly business." Surely Mr Maguire forgets that the manifesto purported to be and was signed by BUSINESS MEN ONLY. I intended to challenge Mr Maguire to deny that THESE 154 CONSTITUTED THE VERY CREAM OF THE BUSINESS MEN' OF INVERCARGILL, and was prepared to submit it to any independent person or persons. I CHALLENGE HIM NOW TO THIS TEST. Hawera has a population of about onefourth of Invercargill, and I say without fear of contradiction that if 40 of the cream of the business men of Hawera signed a manifesto in favour of NoLicense after experience, this would indeed be a very strong argument in favour of No-License, and it would certainly not be a silly business. There are, I know, about 156 business people in Hawera and so 40 represents about one-fourth of *the business men of Hawera, so l i say that the testimony of 154 Invercargill business men constituting the cream of the business men, is a very strong testimony indeed. Will Mr Maguire be honest enough to inquite into my statements, and if they are wrong I will apologise in your paper, and if he is wrong, will be apologise P I am always prepared to admit and make amends for any mistake I may make. The statements he made as to Masterton bankruptcies reflect on Masterton and Masterton business people, and if he is wrong, the least he can do is to withdraw his reflections and: express his regret. NO-LICENSE VOTE. Mr Maguire said that the No-License vote only increased in 1905 by 2 per cent and in 1908 by another 2 per Gent., but this was absolutely misleading, as he omitted to state that the population had increased each three years by over 60,000 and that the No-License' party had to get a three-fifths majority of this increase, and after allowing for this increase, they had a majority of over 2 per cent., each three years. As a niafc ter of fact in 1896 (15.years ago) there was a majority in favour of License of 41,218. In 1899 (12 years ago) there was a majority in favour of License of 23,868; in 1902 (9 year's ago) a majority in favour of No-License of only 3J075; in 1905 a majority in favour of NoLicense of 15,884, and in 1908 a.' majority in favour of No-License of 33,331. Is it not absurd to say that is a SMALL INCREASE? If Mr Maguire considers this is a small increase I do not think the public will think so, and certainly* the Liquor party will not be of that opinion. RE NO-LICENSE DISTRICTS. (5) Mr Maguire referred to the- fact that in only two out of the six NoLicense districts had the three- 3 fths majority been maintained. But surely if he is at all honest he knows and must admit that when the people have carried No-License by a three-fifths majority there is no incentive for any special effort and the people do not trouble to organise so strongly or efficiently,, as they are so certain that the liquor party cannot possibly obtain restoration