A QUESTION OF FREE BEER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12393, 1 July 1902, Page 3

A QUESTION OF FREE BEER.

TO TIIE EDITOR. ' Sir,—My attention has just been called lo your last Thursday's issue, in which you pubjisH a telegram from Invercaigill referring to me. Tho telegram stated that I had accused tho Coronation Committee of showing disrespect to our magistrate by accepting nn offer of free beer for distribution on the sports ground after tho magistrate had refused a licenso for a publican's booth. It said tho eommittoo's explanation was that the quantity of beer accepted was Email; that it was to .bo distributed with the roasted bullock; and tjiat it was accepted previous to the licenso being applied for, Will you permit mo to mako a. fe\V comments on this explanation, As regards tlio quantity and it 3 method of distribution, I lmvo seen tho committeo's minuto book,' and find this momo.: "Beer had also been ■ promised from several people." It is not ' douied that at least ono of these persona was a brewer. Would his donation on such j an occasion havo been a gallon or two? It! is not likely. Th<y committee did not specify tho quantity he was to supply, and it would seem w if thoy wero prepared to accept all that .lie and tho others cared to, send along. .This view is borno "out by the Southland Daily News of June 21, which . stated in its local columns: " There will bo no lack of liquid refreshments on tho ground, as brewers and others havo donated a largo quantity of beer, to bo distributed gratis." This statement was never denied by the committee. Then, as to the stage of affairs at which' this beer wa9 accepted. In tho committeo's minutes of Juno 16 wo find this item: " Resolved—That tenders be called for publican's booth." This was carried by nine against six, the Mayor not voting. Later in the came meeting the memo, concerning tho promises of beer it, entered, and thoro is no refercnco to beer previous to that. No voto was taken on tho question of tho freo beer, and apparently the opponents of tho publican's liooth thought it of no use protesting, as they were outnumbered. Tho beer was therefore accepted after the decision to apply for d license, and bofore tho magistrate refused hia sanction. As no public montion was made ot the beer until after the' magistrate's refusal, tlio natural inioreneo of myself and everybody outside tho : tommittee was that its acceptance was subsequent to that refusal. That tlio committee, .accepted this freo beer previous to the refusal of a license does not make their case any better, ns, according to their own showing, they proposed having free beer on tlio ground in addition' to a. ' publican's booth. Tlio majority thus proved themselves utterly out of touch with the wholesome publio sentiment in favour of licensing drinking facilities on Coronation Day. Whethor their disrespect to tho magistrate tvas deliberately intentional or not, disrespect was undoubtI edly shown, when, in snito of his expiysscd | wish, they allowed arrangements for a distribution of free beer to remain uncancelled; and did not correct nowspaper paragraphs which spoke of its being on a lihoml . scale. Why wa9 the brewor allowed to have a finger in the pie at all? and why waa not that finger withdrawn when events took tho turn they did? The committeo's dcci- ( sion to accept this freo beer remained uni rescinded, though this memo, was on their | minuto book: "Publican's Booth,—Chair- ' man oxplaintd that Mr M'Carthy had refused to grant a license for this on tho ground of its being a gathering greatly for ■ children." Tho chairman who explained the | reasons of the rofusal to that particular meeting was none other than Mr Bain, who professes so much indignation when accused of slighting the magistrate.—l am, ctc., ; T. H. Lto.V, President Southland Tomperance ■ Reform Council. Invcrcargill, June 23.