Mr White’s Reply.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 439, 29 October 1908, Page 3

Mr White’s Reply.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—As stated in my letter in last Saturday’s issue that I have personally an aversion to entering into a controversy as to the evils of license or no-license, believing as I do that the question should be left to the people to decide at the ballot box, free from bias from either side. The challenge to which my letter was a reply was a distinct statement that £I,S OO was spent in liquor, whilst all that the borough received in return was £l6B. This I considered an attempt to mislead the public, who had no other means of judging, into, believing that, that was the total • revenue derived from the

four licensed houses in Foxton. I replied that the borough derived over instead of ,£l6B. Now this challenge, as it appeared, must have been used in the present tense, and in the same manner I replied. To my statement your correspondent, Mr Aitkeu, in a courteous manner, for which I thank him, seeks to put me right and suggests that I, in turn, am trying—not intentionally—to mislead. Well, what are the facts that I base my assertion on? From a statement supplied by courtesy of the town clerk, the figures are these roughly : —Rates, ; license, ,£172, making a total of £264, at present paid into the borough finances ; so that my former statement of ,£2lO was well in fide the mark.. Does this appear as an attempt to mislead ? Let me say that the license fees alone represent, I believe, one-sixth of the total revenue ot the borough, a sum wh'ch under no-license will have to be met by an increase on the present rates if the revenue of the borough is to be maintained. I thank Mr Aitkeu for his intepretation that, closing the. open bars does not mean closing the hotels. Being in the “ trade,” I know well that it means so far as I am concerned, the absolute closing of Whyte’s hotel. Might lin turn, and in 1 lies une spirit, suggest that the closing of the open bars means the opening of sly grog shop, the pr.sence of which I feel sure no one would more sincerely deplore than Mr Aitkeu, and without which it would be impossible to find any single no-license electorate. Again, Mr Aitkeu says, that I pay /40 for the privilege of selling intoxicating liquor ; that is hardly correct; it is for the sale of spirituous liquor. A slightjdifference in name alone perhaps to some, but to all in the trade a very big one. As to the imminent danger to our youth, and this 1 take it to be the moral view, consequently of more importance to Mr Aitken than the economic side. Admitting that the bars were closed, can anyone give an assurance for the future that the tempetatiou to drink removed from those of our youth who have the inclination towards liquor will prevent the going further afield in pursuit of it; or that the dangers of sly grog shops will not be proved an even greater curse than the system that now obtains. So much for Mr Aitken’s evil side of the question. Let me show you another phase. I have been in this town one and halt years, and it has been my pleasure during that period to have supplied to working people (who cannot afford to get quantities into their homes) liquor in quantities according to their means for serious illness in which it had been urgently and professionally recommended by a medical man, and I am glad to say not without result. Had the open bar not been in existence where could people, such as I have named, have got what was at the time urgent medicine to the patient. And now to Mr Aitken’s last query re the amount circulated by me in Foxton. A fair question from a fair opponent begets an honest reply. I can assure him that without a license I could not afford to continue to run my house at all. I have had a fair experience of catering for the public, and I can say that I have never yet been able to get through a year without showing a serious loss on my house or accommodation accoupt causing a very large debit to be placed against my license account, and I definitely answer the question by stating that without a license it would not, even at the same tariff, be possible for me to continue to circulate anything ; it would mean, as far as I am concerned, closing absolutely. Before concluding, I will put Mr Aitken right in a presumption that he had no right to make; I have no right to represent my neighbours nor any authority to do so, 1 spoke for myself and only as relating to my own business, I know less of theirs than a lot of other people. Nor can I allow that the sum named as being spent annually to be accepted on my authority, f did not question the amount for the reason that I am in no better position to certify to its correctness than Mr Aitken is and must be purely a matter of conjecture. And now, sir, having answered the questions as they appear to me and as courtesy to Mr Aitken demanded and for reasons stated at the opening of this letter, so far as I am concerned this correspondence ceases. I set out in the first instance of replying to what were misstatements and having done so find myself engaged in a controversy, the pleasure of which, at so much an inch is too much of a luxury. In conclusion let me thank Mr Aitken for his courteous manner towards me : it is so refreshing to find a gentleman in orders treat a “Publican and Sinner ”as he himself would wish to be treated. We agree to differ; he sees the open bar from the outside, I see it from the inside : each are entitled to their own opinion. lam etc., W. J. White. '