CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12625, 4 August 1904, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. .Trrorißsin.—Xo IMPOSTORS ON CHARITY. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —There are so many people in this community who live and keep their offspring by imposing upon the ratepayers that I think the Cliaritablo Aid Boa/d should delegate full powers to their relieving officer, Mr. Strathern, to make full inquiries about every applicant for relief from respectable ratepayers .who know such applicant, and . that after making such inquiries Mr. Strathern should be solo judge as to who was or was not deserving of aid. From what I know and have heard I think our relieving officer is an excellent man for the position, but, unfortunately, his powers are too limited to prevent deception. He has, too, I understand, to contend against benevo-lently-disposed and well-meaning ladies from church missions and othei kindred societies, whose good nature and softness lead them to champion the cause of drunken and ban characters who £0 to them with a pitiful, and untruthful tuie. Therefore., I say, tliese ladies should also consult neighbouring ratepayers, and not let their good natures lend to the encouragement of imposition and deception referred to. I know of a case of a woman in receipt of relief who pays a If-.rgo sum weekly to a moneylender oif an expensive piano undo; a bill of sale. I have seen the same woman driving in cabs. I know the relieving officer is aware of this case, but is helpless. I could relate many cases of imposition on the ratepayers, but do not wish to take up too much of your valuable* space.— am, etc., Gil A PEL-STREET K.VTEI'AYKIS. THE ALL-ENGLAND FOOTBALL MATCH. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Do you know what you have done? You have directed public attention so industriously towards this match that nearly evcrybody in the province has become interested in it, arid is now consumed by a burning desire to see it happen. The war is no longer in it. I live in a country district, and I assure you that there will be a general exodus therefrom. Hoary old hayseeds who have not seen a football match for decades are quite determined to witness this one. Now, sir, what chance do you think there is for them? You have seen the condition of affairs at an Auckland-Wellington match with an ordinary local crowd. What will it bo on this occasion, with a crowd at least three times the size of an ordinary interprovincial match gathering? Again, "sir, you know what provision the Rugby Union is making to accommodate its visitors, and you know whether it is sufficient. They tell me that there is to be mi auxiliary "stand to carry two thousand people. Won't that relieve the pressure admirably! Under ordinary conditions six thousand persons can see a match. The union, expecting to have at least ten thousand more, make wise provision for two. I have heard more than one person in town express his intention of not going to this match, simply because lie had no hope of seeing anything if he did so. Now, sir, if you would point out to the union that they ought to build an auxiliary stand to carry six thousand people, they would do it immediately. Perhaps you might back up your directions by an appeal to the better nature of the union, pointing out that the public are its patrons and best customers, and should be considered fully in this matter. And, if you are 100 busy to attend to this matter, I would myse'.f suggest modestly to the authorities that they might alter the fence on the northern side of the ground. If that fence were run in a curve instead of an almost straight Jine, a great many more people would be able to see what, was happening.—l am, etc., Waikato. THE PROPOSED LABOUR HALL. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Wlion reading in the paper the other day that over 2500 unionists were represented on the Trades and Labour Council, with. I suppose, as many more who are outside it, and, again, others, as myself, unionists at heart but unorganised, I could not but feel the littleness and lack of independence of 5000 or 600 C wage-earning boys of the bulldog breed, who, to raise funds for a labour hall, prefer to quarrel for months over 1 about* demonstrations, cadge trophies." etc., from employers, pander to our love of chance by a paltry art union gamble, and barter (for donations) oar support of one trade against some other trade. Instead of each of us putting our hands into our own pockets for only one day's wage (the price of a few hours' flutter at the races) ant, settling once for all the question of funds for a hall we should be proud of. Ido not think, sir, there is a religious body in Auckland that has half such a membership, including men members, and yet the weakest sect of them has some kind of a meetingplace. Oui church (not yet finished) has been years building. Have we no faith in ourselves or in our cause of labour, or are we to wait foi years, and at last crawl to some Carnegie or sweater of Chinese labour to buy us with a building?—l am, etc., One Day's Labour for a Labour Hall. THE LIQUOR PROBLEM. TO THE EDITOR. • Sir,—As others besides your correspondent George Wilks may not have thought out with care the phase of this question which ho touches upon, I shall be obliged to ycit if you will allow me to give a quotation which states the case from the prohibition standpoint. "The main purpose of prohibition is not to compel men to stop drinking, but it seeks to discontinue license, an J so forbid the sale of liquor, in ordei to protect others besides the buyer and seller. No prohibitory law yet enacted has forbidden men to drink. It is true that the reform of moral conduct is hoped for as a result, and it is believed that in the absence of the usual public incitements to drink men will cease to drink, but prohibitory law aims at compelling men to cease selling liquor, not at compelling them to cease drinking. "It is ot the first importance to bear in is ot the first importance to bear in ' mind that prohibition deals with the traffic in liquor—with the acts of barter and sale, not . the ac ' of drinking. 'Practically, this distinction may amount to little; but legally j it is a distinction of vital importance. 'Ihe j law that forbid." a man to sell a certain commodity and the law that forbid. l him to use it may be very wide apart in the principles of jurisprudence involved, for the act of selling is an act of public consequence, while the act of using may or may not he. The act of drinking a glass of liquor, for instance, is one that may affect no one but the man himself who drinks; but offering fo» sale to the public the same glass of liquoi is an act that is of a public character and affects the public interests, and that

may, therefore, be justly forbidden b* law." I find that in opposing the current temperance reform movement Mr. Wilts quotes from a statement by the Physical Deterioration Enquiry Committee to the fleet that tea-drinking is one of the causes 'i physical failure of certain classes of people ,n England. That report mentioned ciminke.m.-ss, and the conditions of slum life which are to a large extent the result of the drinking habits of the people, as among the causes of deterioration, and it shows a marvellous capacity on the part of Mr. Wilks for reading things upside down that he can quote any section of such a report in antagonism to almost any kind of temperance reform. I am not an apologist for the tea-drinking habit which Mr. Wilks appears to denounce, but it can hardly be possible for anyone to believe that it is responsible for even a comparable fraction ot the lunacy, crime, want, misery and physical deterioration which are daily manifested in our city ard elsewhere, and which are the accepted natural results of the degrading traffic in intoxicants.—l am, etc., Wesley Spkagg.