"VERAX" AND COMPENSATION. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9512, 22 August 1892, Page 4

"VERAX" AND COMPENSATION. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —I am afraid when " Verax" wrote the letter which appeared in your Friday's issue, he was in an unhappy frame of mind. In the paragraph he devoted to my unlucky self he accuses me of («) lack of courtesy, (b) a like lack of common sense, (c) of ignorance, (d) of unfairness, (c) meanness, (/) dishonesty— that is if honesty is to cost anything. Rather a heavy indictment this to bo contained in a paragraph of some three dozen lines. Wherefore this display of temper ? Doest thou well, " Verax," to be angry ? Knowest thou uot that abuse is not argument, nor is railing reasoning ? I had only mildly suggested that " Verax " appeared to me to be " somewhat self-contradictory." I thought ho was—l think so still, but that maybe inconsequence of my ignorance. I may be unable to grasp the profound reasoning of "Verax"on what I thought was a somewhat commonplace subject. But if " Verax " hopes to be understood by the " common folk," of whom I am one, he should write down to our capacity. "Verax," as I understood him, put in a claim thatthe owners of breweries should be "fully compensated" for "the thousands of pounds' worth of buildings, and plant" which prohibition would render " practically useless." I suggested that if the brewers had a claim—and thus the area of compensation was widening to take in the property-owners and brewers—it would bo difficult to exclude the claims of several others named, and, admitting these, it looked as though the amount of compensation would ran into many thousands of pounds. Buttheulfound "Verax" afterwards saying he had "never been able to fathom the prohibitionists' reason for their strong objection to this obviously fair compensation." He could understand it "if the total sum of money involved were so great as to make prohibition practically impossible if compensation were allowed. This is, however, not the case, the total amount required would probably be small." When I read this latter statement I thought, 'and I still think, it is contrary to and inconsistent with the proposal for the compensation of brewers for " the thousands of pounds' worth of buildings and plant rendered practically useless." Now "Verax" tells me the compensation required for the cost of the conversion of hotels would be but small. But how should that influence the judgment of prohibitionists if behind that small sum is the larger one demanded on account of brewers, Sc. ? Then "Verax" tells me I am in "entire ignorance of the meaning of the common English phrase 'an equitable right.'" Why then does not "Verax," like a good fellow, enlighten my ignorance ? What can an "equitable right" mean hut a right which can be sustained in a court of equity ? If it is the house and not the man which is licensed, what is the meaning of "licensee," "licensed victualler," "licensed publican," &0., &c? I may be asked in turn what is meant by a "licensed house." I will anticipate and say, the house in which a licensed victualler carries on his vocation. "Verax" is not the first to say the house and not the man is licensed. I won't say this is the statement of a fallacy, and a very transparent one too, but to me it looks very like that—so transparent, indeed, that it is not worth serious argument, and there I leave it.—l am, &c, August 16. Vjsditas Vincit.