DRINK CONTROVERSY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13835, 23 February 1907, Page 7

DRINK CONTROVERSY.

Sir,—lt was not my intention to pursue this subject further, but when a correspondent suoli as "Fairplay" runs foul of me he is greatly mistaken if lie thinks it is my nature to allow his vituperative and malicious jumble-up of an epistle to pass unchallenged or unanswered by mo. What I stated in my letter was perfectly correct, as exaggeration on any matter is not in my nature to make. Your correspondent is altogether wrong (perhaps intentionally) as to my construction of the taking of the law_ in my own hands, as it would only bo in such extreme eases as that described by Mr Robertson, -when 110 saw two juveniles accosting or insulting two ladies, when quietly looking 011. If lie had only had his bagpipes with him be could easily enough havo given them a blast strong enough to blow them more than.a rcspeetablo distance off. If " Fairplay" would only adjust his green spectncles again, and ,rcad carefully, ho will find that it is his 'friend who freely advocates the use of tho hemp—sometimes known as tho lash. Your different correspondents—l mean tho abusive and gentlemanly ones—might juat as well disabuse their minds about my interests (which arc nil) in the liquor traffic, as it is .quite 'immaterial to mo whether there is liquor of an_ intoxicating nature in tho city or otherwise for all I drink, which lias been none to-day, with tho exception of ginger beer. I frankly admit having consumed nioro than an ordinary amount of liquor—both hard and soft— during thc_ ppst 20 years, and feel 110110 tho worso in health through having done so

Tho abusive letters written by some of your correspondents who try to espouse tho tempcrance cause simply alienate a, large section of the moderate party from them through their showing how tyrannical thov would bo if they only had the power. They, don't believe in persuasion, neither do I in coercion. To show how rash some fools are—l cannot use a milder termin making not only exaggerated but untruthful statements, such, for instance, that of "Fairplay" j ("Foulplay would havo been nearer tho mark), when 110 accuses ire of belonging to tlio "larrikin clement," and also of having, been past the "seeing stage." Would your impertinent correspondent believe that I hadn't a drink in any of tho six hotels; neither did I "drink with tho flies," which is' a new expression, and most likely a larrikin one, or even bask in tho smiles of the barmaids, of whom wo havo heard so much. My only reason for visiting these hotels on a Saturday night was' for the purpose of seeing whether the accuscrs wero justified or not in making the statement that our youths were going to wreck and ruin through drink.

If "Fairplay " thinks that I am cowardly in writing over a nom do plume, why on earth did ho do so? To cut the mattor shor.t, and to show that there is none of what ho terms tho "larrikin element" about mo. I challenge him not to mortal combat, but to sign ; his namo if ho is inclined to reply, and I will guarantee in return in like manner to do so over mine. Ho is altogether in a fien-and-ink. fog if ho thinks .that I belong to a weak-kneed and spineless family of weeds. A thorough gentleman, as expressed by your valuable correspondent, is a. gentleman I am not acquainted with, and I am sure it is not a Chesterfield one ho refers to;- but all tho same, I know this—that all the uorld o'er "a man's a man, for a' that."—l am, etc., ' Palmyka. February 22.