Reply to Mr. White.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 439, 31 October 1908, Page 3

Reply to Mr. White.

[to the editor]

Sir,—l must congratulate Mr White in making out as good a case for his side as it would be possible to make. I am also glad that he has conducted the argument in such terms that although we must necessarily differ in our opinion on the subject of nolicense, we can retain a kindly respect for each other. There are one or two statements made by Mr White in his reply to my letter that I should like to make a brief reply to; and as my side have also to meet a claim for the space occupied, my words shall be few and well chosen. Mr White now gives us the true figures iu relation to what the borough receives from the four licensed houses in Foxton, viz.— rates, £92 ; licenses, £172. Now, suppose there were no licenses, the sum of £92 for rates would still be paid, if not by the present occupiers, then by some other person. It is clear then that the loss the borough is to sustain by the carrying of no-license is £172, or an average of £43 per licensed house. That is surely a fair statement. Now let us see the other side. As a borough, we lose £172 in license fees, but we gain £7,s°° which we are at present spending, and can show nothing for it. But Mr White says we will have to strike a higher rate if we lose the £172 for license fees ; but does it not strike him as reasonable that, even if that were so, we have ,£7,500 more money in our pockets with which to pay it. I am under the impression that no higher rate will be necessary for the local circulation of the sum we save in liquor will give a buoyancy to business, and trade that will create increased values, and the ability to pay it. Of the large amount spent in liquor in this district a large percentage is sent right away from the district and benefits those at a distance, such as brewers, distillers, shippers, carriers, etc., the retaining and circulation within the district of that which now passes through foreign channels and benefits outsiders, will become a real asset in the community and result in better houses, more comfortable furniture, better clothes, finer pictures, more books and magazines, etc., and all that means more money circulating in the community. I am surprised to learn from Mr White that his hotel, as such, does not pay, and if his bar is closed it means the shutting up of the premises. That, I think, is tantamount to an admission that there are more hotels in Foxton than are necessary to meet the requirements of the public. It is to be hoped that the licensing authority will take a note of that in the event of continuance being carried. Now, what does that mean; simply this—that people are staying in our hotels, or at least Whyte’s hotel, who are not paying for their board and are depending on their neighbours who spend their earnings on liquor, to make up the deficiency, and is a frank and substantial admission that the man who drinks does not get value for his money, but has to pay a proportion of the board of the man who is enjoying the comforts and luxuries of a first-class hotel at a low tariff. I hope Mr Whyte’s boarders enjoy the position in which his statement places them. Then Mr Whyte tells us of the danger of what he terms the “ sly grog shop,” and means illicit trading. I am prepared to assert that such is done under license. I have only been in Foxton for a year and a-half, and at least one conviction is recorded for this very thing during that time ; and I have information that would have led ttre police on a good scent, had Jcertain practices continued. The ( danger from illicit trading will be enormously minimised when the public bars are closed;*and the public need not fear its effects as the latter. Mr White quibbles when he corrects me for calling spirituous liquor intoxicating, .and I have

yet to learn that spirituous liquors are not intoxicating. As to the contention that our young men will be driven further afield in the search for the intoxicating cup, does not reflect well on the morals of our young men ; and, were I one of them, I would feel disposed to resent such an accusation. My contention is, that when the temptation of the public bar is removed from our midst, there will be taken away what is the greatest menace to moral growth in our community, and its removal here will teach our youth to do without the liquor either at home or abroad. Mr White says, “I see the open bar from the outside ; he sees it Irom the inside.” I admit that; and I am therefore, as an uninterested party—so far as personal gain or loss is concerned —in an unbiased relationship to the liquor traffic, and able to judge more fairly than an interested party. 1 wish, however, that Mr White could see the effects of the open bar as I have seen them —the wretched homes, the broken hearts, the starving children, the demoralised human beings, the squalor, the misery, the degradation, the slums, the waste; I believe he would sav, “ I will never sell a pennyworth ol the damnable stuff again as long as I live.” The only true vie.v that can be obtained of the effects of alcoholism is: to see it from the outside, and when it is seen in all its horrors —as I have seen it—l am sure no man with the slightest | consideration for his fellows, would recommend its use.

Then Mr W. J. White tells us that be has been able to supply liquor “to working people who cannot afford to get quantities into their homes according to their means for serious illness, when ordered by a medical man.” Surely Mr White does not seriously believe that such a fact is a justification for the open bar, with its myriad temptations and evils, when everybody knows that alcohol for medical purposes is to be found in every chemist’s shop in the country ; and can be purchased cheaper there than in the form of alcoholic drinks. If a medical man prescribes for me, and it is necessary to have alcohol in the medicine, as is frequently the case, he does not dream of sending to the hotel for the alcohol, and to the chemist for the other constituents. He simply instructs the chemist to supply the whole. Besides that, it is stated by the highest medical authorities that alcohol can in almost every case of illness be substituted with advantage by something else. The whole testimony of medical science to-day is against the use of alcohol in -disease ; further, the closing of the bars impose no hardship ou the working man, because if he is able to spend his 6d or a is a-day tor his glass ot beer, he can easily arrange to have the quantity allowed by the Act in his own home. I must thank Mr White for his generous treatment of my criticisms, and assure him that I bear nothing but the kindliest feelings towards him or any other person in that trade; but while I have strength, I regard it as my Christian duty, to denounce a licensed system iraught with such, fearful issues.—l am, etc., Geo, K. Aitken.

P.S. —Since writing the above letter, I have been informed by a gentleman who is iu a position to know, that the amount stated to be spent in liquor in Foxton, £7,500, is very wide of the mark. He says: “.If I double that amount, and add a 1,000 or two more, I may be near it.’’ If this statement is correct, what, in the name of reason, are the people of this district thinking of in permitting such diabolical waste ? lam astounded and speechless in the face of such a possibility.—G. K. A.