NO LICENSE IN INVERCARGILL

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16518, 6 April 1914, Page 3

NO LICENSE IN INVERCARGILL

TO THK XDIXOB. Sir.—“ Moderate" in Saturday’s “Lyttelton Times” seems to think he has proved that No-License causes stagnation as compared with License, and quotes Timaru and Wanganui in support. Now, what “Moderate” did do was to demonstrate that, Timaru and Wanganui were rich farming districts. Wanganui is admittedly one of the richest dairying districts in New Zealand, and Timaru is supported by a splendid farming district; hence, more production, more wealth, moreexports and more imports. Southland is known as a much poorer fanning district, and if “Moderate” reads the papers he will see that there were only a few sections of land taken up at a recent land ballot. “ Moderate might just as well expect the land about Bankside to carry as large, a population as land at Lecston, and to expand ns quickly. “Moderate” also quotes Cardinal Gibbous:—“ Prohibition makes hypocrites and is utterly impossible in a Christian country,” and goes on to say “I fervently pray that providence will interfere and save New Zealand from the wreck and degradation of prohibition tyranny.” Might I he allowed to add—as shown by results of compulsory closing of the Auckland liquor oars during the watersiders’ strike? I would just like to remind “Moderate” that as soon as there was trouble at Auckland amongst the strikers the civil authorities closed tho liquor bars, and with tliis result: Convictions for offences attributable to drink during six days preceding closing of bars, 40, average 71 per day, and during sixteen days; when bars werb closed 29, average per day less than 2. During eight horn’s (day time only) on day on which bars were reopened there were 3S arrests. Cardinal Gibbons and “ Moderate” confuse eauso and effect. It is the drink that so lowers a man’s moral standard that ho will do anything, oven sell himself body and soul. —I am, etc., •THOMAS E. PEARSON. March 28. TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—Tn your issue of March 30, “ Septimus G. ” attempts by misrepresentation to confuse the issues betwixt “Moderate” and myself. Ho states that I accepted “ Moderate’s ” figures regarding Invercargill. I did nothing of tho sort. I merely drew “ Moderate’s ” attention to the fact that he had used a column of space to prove that the increase in population in Invercargill was retarded, because men who could not get a glass of beer without, being criminals were leaving tho city. And in his next effusion “ Moderate ” sets out to prove that the people of Invercargill drunk a gallon of beer per head more than tho people of license towns. To most people the inconsistency of tho two positions is self-evident. Ido not accept “Moderate’s” statements—no logically-minded person could—but to draw attention to tlieir contradictory nature seemed sufficient refutation. .

“ Septimus G. ” also quotes my statement that increased wages and reduction of hours of labour are benefits that some people have abused by wasting them on tho liquor trade. This is an economic fact that not oven a liquor controversialist dare dispute. But “Septimus” argues from it that Prohibitionists would therefore desire men “to work harder, longer hours, and get less money.” I classed shorter hours and increased wages as “benefits,” and I also stated that the remedy for the “ some jxmple ” was to “ cross out tho top line.” Neither by statement or inference did I advocate the abolition of these benefits. For “Septimus” to declare on the strength of my letter that “we wish to impose poverty upon the workers ” is straining casuistry to breaking point.—l am, etc., •ARTHUR- TOOMBKS. Kaiapoi, March 30.