Facts are Facts.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 440, 3 November 1908, Page 2

Facts are Facts.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] [to the editor.]

Sib, —As I am on the eve of selling out my interest in the Post Office Hotel, and being the oldest hotelkeeper in the Borough of Foxton, I should like to say a few words as to the inconsistency of some Of the leading lights of the No-license League, and members of the Good Templars Bodge. I understand that the rule of the lodge is to abstain from touching, tasting or handling any intoxicating liquor. With your permission, I should like you to answer me the three following questions:—xst. : Does that rule justify a “leading light” of the No-license League, and one of the head men in the Good Templars Lodge from consuming intoxicating liquor on hotel premises, and also taking intoxicating liquor home to his private house for consumption therein ? 2nd.: Does it justify an aspirant tor a seat in the House of Representatives, who is advocating prohibition, to drink at the public bar,. and also have intoxicating liquor on his premises for his own consumption ? 3rd.: Does it justify a minister of the Church, who is advocating no-license, to send to the hotelkeeper for intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes when this medicine, as the prohibitionists say, can be bought from the chemist ? I have always refrained from entering into newspaper correspondence over the no-license question ; but on this occasion, cannot help doing so. In conclusion, after reading the correspondence in the Mauawatu Herald, I can endorse the experience of Mr W. J. White as regards to catering for the general public, and can safely say—that it would be absoJulety impossible to cater for the public as is now being done by hotelkeepers without the open bar,

for these reasons That the police compel licensees to keep the accommodation up to a standard ; that without license, they would not be able to enforce. Take my house, for instance: Had it been without license was sufficient for all requirements, but the Health Department, Police, and finally the Licensing Committee, exercising their rights under the Act, compelled me last year to expend several hundred pounds on improvements for the benefit, of the public. This does not then infer that the guests do not pay for their accommo lation so much as to prove that the authorities require a standard to be maintained under existing conditions provided for by the Act, whereby the travelling public shall be sufficiently and properly accommodated. What, then, sort of accommodation could the geue:al public expect under the no-license system ?—I am, etc., George Gray. [We are asked to answer three queries. In reply to the first, our answer is : A Good Templar is not justified in touching, tasting, or handling intoxicating liquor; a No-License supporter can, if he chooses, consume alcoholic liquor on hotel premises, aud take it home for consumption—iu fact, some of the most ardent supporters of No License are hard drinkers, aud their hope to overcome this weakness, added to the future happiness and prosperity ol those connected with them, lies iu the removal of the open bar temptation. Such men are best qualified to express an opinion, for they speak from bitter experience. (2) An aspirant for Parliamentary honours is perfectly justified iu advocating prohibition (which, by the way, should not be confused with No- • License), even though be drinks at the open bar, and consumes his liquor in his own home. This does not affect the principle advocated any more than for an ardent criminal to warn his fellow men against immorality. One may as well argue that because there are counterfeit shillings, therefore all shillings are counterfeit! (3) A minister of the chur.h, who advocates NoLicense, is at liberty to please himself whether he goes to a “pub” or chemist’s shop for intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes. This question is quite irrelevant to the subject of NoLicense. — Ed. H.J