BURY THE HATCHET.

North Otago Times, Volume C, Issue 13178, 6 October 1914, Page 1

BURY THE HATCHET.

X -To tho E(litoiljOf,' ( Tho. Timos.f '.[ ■-, Sir.-T^-''T, 11.-Mritliiosori' ? in'answer:; ingiiiy lottorro the l v 'burial, qf tjio'hat- , diet,,'* says, with an outburst of; patriotism, I advocnte tlio above,' I am glad to say my outburst is very small I'cpjiiparcil to;that- of thousands of people in Now. Zealand, But like'the rest I-]iavc ; doii6,.:nnd will do, my very 'level" best.to help those who,arc nobly lighting our battles, while we are at homo ,jvritirig. ; letters to,tho press, and at-, tonding topur cvery-day duties. Ho also says'that my suggestion is an echo'of, tho.liquor/party's manifestp. I defy MrMathioson or anyone else to'provo t am" in : any way connected with the' liquor party, nor do I over intend to lje.jj rani, one of thoso moderates, whom Mr Mathiesoh calls "would-be moderates," but in my humblo;opinion they aron lot more manly, straightforward, and above board than the would : bc furi-; tans, who go about interfering in otliorj people \s business, trying to pull tho mote •! out of 'their brother's cyo bnt.failmg. to see the beam in their own. Not bo-' ing well up in-Scripture I may hnvo put Ihe carl; before the'horse. Mr Mathieson Bays that die 'Prohibition Party are' a very charitable, lot-of people. I tjitve'', known. No-license people, as I stylo; Ihem, from ono end of. Now the, other, and have found some of •tlicm charitable, manly, and hind, But taken' as a body their charity starts at homo nnd.nover gets any further. I would like to nsk Mr Mathieson a question or Iwo.Piist: Is it n fact that Ihn licensed pa)iy : gave' about £490,, and the nolicense did not. give anything, to the Otago Daily Times Patriotic Fund? As I have this on hearsay only 1 would lako it as a favour if Mr Mathieson would, put the mattor clear. Second; When drink causes so much Buffering and misery why don't his party ndyqcate no-license, no liquor, and <'o save: those in'lio-license districts from the ''curse,'' as ho styles it?' Also: Why did tlicy oppose Clnuso 9 in liie late Mr Seddon's Bill which, if inserted, would have kept liquor out of all nolicense districts? Also: Was it an act of charity to oppose compensation, to me by the losing of my license? ■ I< lest about, say, £3OOO. Mr Miitlneson says it was fdr.the benefit of the.people of Onmani. Why should nn individual loso .£3000? Why should lie not be'eoiiK pensnted? I contend that no-license has done harm, as T know several lads or ypung men (natives of Onmnru), who wore never in a hotel in Oamaru, have, now/cultivated a thirst winch cold water will not'qtlench; i-i fact, theft are. very hard drinkers, T rtho' would like to ask—was reduction fair or charitable? Reduction-meant ruination' for those closed and a monopoly for those left, Yet Mr Mathieson and his party tried very hard to have it retained. So much for. charity. , Ab:o; Was" it honourable after a well-known no-license lawyer in Duncdin received about £.'lßo to draw up an agreement, which was approved of and agreed to by, both parties, for the no-license party to hack down? Now, I will make Mr Mntliieson a fair offer. He says drink is a curse, I don't go that far, I say 'drinking to excess is a terrible curse and has,ruined many homes but nolicense will never cure it. But if Mr Mathieson"or his party wish'to-take steps to prevent drink, except / for medicinal or sacramental purposes, being brought into, or kept in, a no-li-ceiisc district, I will help them in ovory way in my. power.—l am, etc, • , O. H. WISE.