Untitled

Northern Advocate, 1 September 1888, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

( We arc not responsible for the opinions oj correspondents. Writers must give theirnames, not for publication but as a guarantee of good faith.) (To the Editor.) Sib, — In your paper of the 28th July la9t, I see a letter from a Mr D Munro, making what I consider, a mean attack of a personal nature on Mr D. McLeod, of this settlement ; and, as he is away from home, and possibly never saw the letter referred to, I will endeavour to explain a few of the misleading assertions that Mr Munro has made. Mr Munro seems anxious to pass himself off as a reformer, otherwise he might be allowed to sing his own praises as much as he liked ; but those who loin in what is considered a good cause should { have their characters scrutinized, their motives weighed, and their actions thoroughly watched, or they may, if possessed of a degree of cleverness combined with low mean cunning, do an incalculable amount of mischief < But to the business in hand. We pass all personalties over as beneath notice ; but when allusion is made to what is meant by the abolition of prohibition in the liquor traffic in nine countries in Canada, however Mr Munro, or the like of him, will twist and distort the fact, we are justified in coming to the conclusion that prohibition was found to be a delusion and*a snare, and that the people came (as we shall do some time), to think that it was better to be honest and above board with the matter, and give their votes accordingly. Mention is made of the late Itev. N. McLeod, and his advocacy of temperance. Well, sir, I remember the Rev. Mr McLeod, and heard him speak and preach on the question of temperance on many occasions, but never heard him say a word in favour of prohibition; he had too good a brain, and understood mankind too well to think that he could reform society by Billy acts of Parliament made to satisfy a silly lot ot people who should be under restraint, but who instead are doing all in their power to put others under restraint, and by the power of members are, in a few cases, successful. I have also known Mr D. McLeod for many years, and can say, without fear of contradiction, that I never heard him say or do anything that woould tend to overthrow his father's works on the question of temperance, Mr Munro's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Much appears to be made of this settlement as a case in point in favour of prohibition. Now, sir, lamin a position to say something on the question, and I say that, ever since it was a settlement, liquor has been sold in it and all over it, and always under prohibition, because no man ever held a proper retail license here, and I also hope that our so-called reformers are satisfied with the results. I am not. I have no doubt our would be considered reformer, Mr D. Munro, will verify this. There was a time here when a man (we will call him so) built a small hut by the road side (something like the spider and the fiy), where very bad dirty rum was sold to unwary travellers, who could get drunk enough, but could get no food or lodgings. That hut is not used for these purposes now ; but, no thanks to prohibition. The supply of rum was stopped in Auckland, because the hutkeeper got rum from all the dealers, but forgot to pay for it, and bought lots on the sly here, and again omitted to pay ; and was again short of supply, and then the hutkeeper joined the, I think Salvation Army. I put it to any reasonable man, could such things be carried on if we had a decent public house in the district ? Could scare crows and black legs of this description ever get a foot-hold in our midst had we been all of an honest turn of mind, and ready to acknowledge that a great traffic in liquor is carried on here, and that it is better and wiser to get it under proper regulations than under the present system, which >s likely to ruin our youth by fostering sly, secret, stealthy habits.— Yours, &c. Spectator. (To the Editor.) Sib, — In your issue of the 18th inst., Mr D. j McLeod resumed his parable, and is bent on parsuing the even tenor of Ms way. Hiß extraordinary itch for scribling ; that vain love of display in dabbling in printeris ink, airing his thoughts in the papers, w»uld be pardonable, if directed to the interests of humanity and the moral advancement of the races: but when tbe pen is prostituted to bolster up a cause that is an incubus on civilization, and is the prolific source of misery to mankind, deserves not our sympathy. Mi 1 McLeod is jubilant over the re-action that has set in, as he alleges, in Canada against the Temperance movement, and the triumphant repeal of the Scots Act. What interest or benefit I should like to know is it to the people of this colony to know the domestic pickadilos in a small remote corner in the far west of Canada ? This night-mare that is continually haunting Mr McLeod of a great anti-tem-perance movemct throughout Canada is a delusion of his, and lacks confirming. The Scots Act was repealed after a three years trial in seven counties in Ontario, not nine counties as your correspondent stated in one of his letters ; besides he is silent on the means adopted in the liquor interest to obtain a majority of electors for the repeal of the Act, Whether the repeal of the Act was obtained by a popular vote of a majority of bona fide ratepayers, or by the lavish waste of money and stuffing rolls with bogus voters, your correspondent does not enlighten us ? Illustrative of the weapons that was most likely brought into play in Canada to secure their ends, we have Waipu, when theso-called moderate party were within a kick of carrying the election when fully two-thirds of the bona fide ratepayers were opposed. There cannot be the shadow of doubt but the very same tatics, the demoralizing influence, the same roll stuffing as at Waipu were used before the result was brought about that Donald exults in. M McLeod's plea for his advocasy of the extension of the liquor traffic &c, to act as an antidote for the suppression of sly-grog selling, is all bunkum. Mr McLeod dubs every person differing in opinion from himself a " fool and fanatic," accuses them with answering " reason with abuse." No man to my knowledge possesses abuse in more plentiful store than he does, and something allied to sophistry takes the place of reasoning. In a letter of Mr D. McLeod's lately published in the Advocate, after withering abuse he boasted that his " quiver was abundantly supplied with such." The editor of the "Leader" and all wellwishers in the colony possess the same gift to bring Mr McLeod out and show his metal. In conclusion I beg to apologise for occupying so much of your valuable space. — I am, &c. D. Mtjneo. Waipu, August 22nd 1883. [This must end the correspondence on this subject. It can end in no good, but rather tend to mature ill-felling, and foster a spirit of contention which should die out.— Ed.]