SYDENHAM LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9762, 27 June 1892, Page 6

SYDENHAM LICENSING COMMITTEE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —l sea by your valuable papers of Friday and Saturday a report of a meeting held in the Oddfellows’ Hall, Christchurch, called by several brewers, publicans and their sympathisers, to pass resolutions condemning the action of the Sydenham Licensing Bench. As I read of the unruly and disorderly meeting, I felt disgusted at the conduct of several of the leading actors of the affair. This meeting was held in a hall in Christchurch, condemning the action of - the Sydenham' Licensing Bench for carrying out' the wishes of the people, v Why did: not the brewers have the meeting in thte Sydenham Oddfellows’ Hall, where the ratepayers and the people who are interested or affected by tbe refusal of the licenses reside P Because the brewers were afraid. I see ia Saturday’s paper a letter signed by A. M, Melville, along with “ Anti-Humbug ” and others, questioning the Rev L. M. Isitt’a propriety as regards the hearing of tho evidence brought before the Committee. I have heard men whom wo regard as opposed to our movement state that Mr laitt filled his office well, and discharged his unpleasant duty nobly. It is not the desire of any prohibitionist to ruin any maa, but lift him up to that position in which God created him—holy, immortal, happy. Yet we hear brewers and publicans talking about robbing an honest man of his living I What we wish to do is clear the country of this accursed liquor, and see the money which is spent in it spent on the wives and children ia buying clothing, boots and shoes, Ac. Every leader of any reform has to suffer. History teaches us this. Martin Luther suffered; John Wesley suffered; Abraham Lincoln, after doing so much for the liberation of the slaves, was shot; James Garfield, after spending his life in doing good, was shot; and when such men as the Rav L. M. Isitt, T. E. Taylor and others will stand the abuses which lawyers, brewers and publicans heap upon them, they deserve the respect and esteem of the community in which they labour.— I am, Ac., H. FOSTON.

TO THE EDITOR. Ehit,—l was amused at the moderate party on Thursday evening at their meeting. They could not utter a word in favour of the drink traffic, or even to regulate it. If Mr Ollivier or Mr Hoban find it a necessity to have hotels open, I trust they will contribute towards the building of an asylum in which to put those poor unfortunate creatures that appear so often at our Police Courts, and have to bo remanded for medical treatment. —I am, &c., E. J. TO THE EDITOB. Sie, —Much as I would prefer to address you under my own signature, you will easily understand I cannot do so from the fact that I am a man of business in a small way, and many of my customers are Prohibitionists, and in this instance freedom of action is certainly restricted through the Christian charity of the Chairman of the Licensing Bench of our district, who, though a clergyman, practises the doctrines he teaches from the pulpit in the most extraordinary manner in daily life. From my name, as enclosed, you can no doubt testify to the fact that. I am entirely independent of the influence of brewers, wine and spirit merchants or publicans, and X can, therefore, safely sign myself ‘'Disinterested.” I am not, however, disinterested in seeing valuable property spoilt, respectable people nearly ruined, savings of thrif t thrown to the dust, widows and children becoming burdens on the State; and for what? To servo the ends of certain selfopinionated men to rise to notoriety when they cannot otherwise aspire to a place in the history of our adopted country. Do

these honourable gentlemen, _ who call themselves the Sydenham Licensing Bench, really wish reasonable people to believe that they refused the licenses on evidence and not on their own motion ? If they do, they must certainly think the rest of the community is as soft as themselves. Why, at the last meeting, when they refused the three licensee for our borough, a large and influential lob of evidence was brought forward in favour of all the three houses, but especialy in the cases of the Waltham Arms and Lancaster Park, the only objector being in each case tbe—well, to use a charitable expression—wellknown agitator, Mr Taylor, who lives something like two miles away from the houses in question. On the other hand, neighbours of all classes of society, creeds and opinions, including J.P.’s, ex-Mayora of our Boroughs, members of Licensing Committees, past and present Chairmen of directly adjoining districts, &c., ail gave the most favourable testimony, not only as to the necessity of the houses, but also to the manner in which they had been conducted. Now, these Commissioners say, “We gave our decision on the evidence/’ Moral: All these gentlemen who attended to give evidence for the publicans are unreliable and not to be believed. Their testimony is of no value, and as for character, they can have none. Mr Taylor has given evidence to the contrary, and this we must accept and decide upon. I wish the reverend gentleman and his colleagues would look at things in a practical way, and declare, “Wo decided on our own motion.” They would then at least be honest and and everyone would understand their bid for notoriety.— I am, &Ci, DISINTERESTED.