MR H. S. PISH IN REPLY. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6351, 20 June 1882, Page 3

MR H. S. PISH IN REPLY. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—The letters of: John Scanlan aiid Henry John Walter reflecting on my action as a licensing commissioner of Dunedin South and Central districts would have'remained unnoticed by meuntil the day of judgment, had not you thought the subject-matter thereof worthy of editorial notice in your sub-leader in- Tuesday's issue. -As, however, you have thought fit to do so (unnecessarily, I think), a few words from me may not be out of place. You say: "Another is the case of a man | whose house was painted and decorated by a member of^ a licensing committee^ who had i thus a direct interest in granting the license." | If; this statement" were correct, I fail to see where the "direct interest" comes in; but as iit is absolutely incorrect, as I will presently show, you will, I anticipate, be only too ready to withdraw your remarks. The facts are as follow:—I arrived in Dunedin from Wellington on Saturday night, June 3rd ; on the Monday following, atnoon, the Licensing Bench for Dun- | edin South met. The police presented a-re-port which inter alia stated that the Roj-al Hotel in Walker street was in a very dirty condition, walls and ceiling unpapered, woodwork unpainted and dirty, &c, &c ; and in the case of the Golden Age, in Stafford street, that it was very old and dilapidated, and the lower part constructed ofold 'shingles, &c. : In the former case the Bench adjourned the application for a fortnight, in order that the applicant might get the premises put in decent order. In the latter case they adjourned the application for a similar time, in order that the Bench might personally inspect the building with a view of determining whether they would grant a license or not. Nothing wrong I •think, so far. Next day v a gentleman—a brewer, who has been,a customer of mine for years, and who1 appears to be interested in the house — left word ■at my place of business, with my managar, that he was to execute certain repairs, which he did. Is it to be contend^ that because I happened to be a licensing commissioner I should have refused to do the work for a customer? Unless I were an idiot, which I don't think I am, I certainly would not do so. You will see that the work was ordered and done 'after the meeting, and then not for the licensee'but for another person; and further, it was perfectly I well known that I would not be present when the matter finally came up after the adjournmeufc, and therefore could influence the Bench neither one way nor the.other. My friend Mr Scanlan was annoyed, no doubt, from the fact that at the time mentioned he was painting the I front of the house for another person—viz., the ground landlord, .and doubtless thought that anything required internally ought to come his way also. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately forme, the person who had to pay for the inside work happened to be a customer of mine and not his. And as to the general policy of the Bench, was it not a correct one? What the Bench, through me as its chairman,laid down was this: That in their opinion the time had arrived when wooden houses in large thoroughfares should not bo licensed, and gave a warning note that at a future meeting, if they held office, unless the buildings were renewed iin brick or stonej. they might hot be licensed; and that at anyrate anyone having such a building should at least keep it in decent and; tenantablo repair. Of course these re-: marks did not apply to a superior class of wooden houses, of which there was more than one m the district. I think the policy of the Bench was sound, and ono that will meet!with the approval of nine sensible people out of ten. This letter is sufficiently long, and I will.With-' your permission, deal with,the Walter episode in another.to-morrow.—l am, &c.i .'..-,, H. S. Fish, Jun, ; Wellington, June 15th. - <