THE NO – LICENSE QUESTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 439, 27 October 1908, Page 2

THE NO - LICENSE QUESTION.

REPLY TO MR WHIYH, Sir, — I wish to reply to the letter published in Saturday’s issue of the Hkrai,d by Mr W. J. White, licensee of Whyte’s Hotel, in which he deals with the financial side of the No-License question in such a way as to throw dust into the eyes of the unthinking. Mr White’s letter would at first glance lead the reader to suppose that because Mr White has a license to sell liquor at ,£4O per year, the borough is therefore benefitted to the amount of nearly a year, which I can prove is not the case. For granting Mr White a monopoly to sell liquor the borough receives in revenue per year, but Mr White does not state how much is spent iu liquor. Mr White talks about the rates, but he knows very well that if No-Liceuse were carried he would have to pay the same rates as he does now —so would the other hotelkeepers, as they are all rated on the unimproved value of the land. His reference to rates does not enter into the argument, as the No-License question does not affect them. Mr While says that he has circulated among the business people of Foxton. I will not dispute that, but what did Mr White spend the ,£I3OO on ? Was it spent to assist him to run the bar ? If so, then the borough tradesmen would lose this amount if No-License were carried. But he knows that is not the case. He knows, too, that No-Liceuse does not mean closing up the hotels, it only means abolishing the sale of alcoholic liquor in the hotels. I take it that the he spent was for the purchase of meat, groceries, bread, etc., lor himself, boarders, and the travelling public. If the bar is closed the same amount of money would be spent, unless the travelling public and boarders decided to starve, which I think very unlikely. I quite agree with Mr White when he says vhat the people should be left to decide this question without coercion cr attempts to mislead, and it is lor this reason that I have taken up the cudgels in defence of No-License, against his figures which may mislead any person without a knowledge of the clear cut issues. Mr White’s which he says he circulated among Foxton tradespeople, and the rates he pays, has as much to do with the No-License question as the money any flaxmiller pays in wages. The facts remain, and Mr White cannot get outside them, that the people ' of Foxton pay, even at the lowest estimate,

as stated by tbc No-Eicense advertisement, £7500 P er year for liquor, to get back iu revenue from the licensees £l6O ! Any person with common sense can see what a benefit it would be to Foxton if this £7500 were spent iu other channels than in throat-tickling. I also sign my name, —

P, T. Robinson.