Mr BERNARD NICHOLLS-APOSTLE OF MISREPRESENTATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13855, 19 March 1907, Page 6

Mr BERNARD NICHOLLS-APOSTLE OF MISREPRESENTATION.

Sin,—lt is difficult ( lo conceive of any- I thing more insolently dishonest than the letter which Mr Bernard Nicholls published in your issue of the 13th inst. Ho endeavours there to deceive your readers into the belief that I acted an improper part in communicating, as I did, with ministers of religion in (he Old Country and America, and in publishing the replies which I received ■ to iny inquiries. Your readers must have noticed that Mr Nicholls did not publish (he letter v.hich ho sent, to those ministers and olliors who replied to to inc. This lie is bound to do unless lie is content to act a dishonest and deceptive part. From part of the answer to his letter by Mr Ronald M'Donald, tlio U.F. minister of. Dingwall, he must have misrepresented my position on the temperance question. Mr Nicholls particularly directs your. readers to a. passage in which I doscritie myself as a temperance man. If he represented in his letter to Mr M'Donald that I was not on the side of temperance, then Mr Nicholls is guilty of a. falsehood. I wrote Mr M'Donald, as I did othere, "trying to find a solution for this difficult problem," and as I wrote in perfectly good faith I published the reply in the sumo way. Before I deal further with Mr McDonald's answer, permit mo to siate my position on the temperance question, which I have done over and over again, and which is quite well known to Mr Nicholl.s, although he prefers to deliberately misrepresent. me:— 1. I believe in total abstinence as much as Mr Nicholls docs, but I believo total abstinence should be the result, of moral suasion, not of compulsion. If men are forccd to 1» total abstainers the virtue of their abstinence is worthless. 1 believo tliat there aro a great many people who would be much better if they 'were to leave liquor alone, and I (irmly believe that

when men become total abstainers by conviction fhey arc as much entitled to their opinions as are those who differ from fliem. 2. There are, however, a great many men who decline to lie total abstainers, and who think that they are legitimately entitled to a moderate use of alcohol, and these, I believe, have as' much right lo bo considered as total abstainers, and are morally entitled to have reasonable- facilities where it can be procured. On this basi s I wrote Mr M'Donald and others on July 10, 1905, as follows:-" Sir, The liquor question has bulked very largely in New Zealand as one of (he chief puhli'o questions of (lie day. The solution of tho problem is variously sought. The New Zealand Alliance seeks tc obtain tho absolute prohibition of sale of all intoxicating liquors by a vote of tho people. Others desiro Stnto control. . . . Willi a view to enabling us to arrive at a perfectly just, conclusion, and of influencing the public mind in a Christian and righteous direction, I shall esteem it a very great favour if you will do mo tho honour to lot mo havo your opinions by return mail on tho following questions, which I most respectfully submit' and herewith enclose." The first question was: "Do you consider the absolute prohibition of the sale of all . intoxicating liquors a Christian method of securing the temperance of the people!" Your readers' will notice tho fairness of this question, covering, as if. does, tho attitude of the New Zealand Alliance. Mr M'Donald's answer was " No." The second question_ was: "Is such repression likely, in your judgment, to produce a nobler and more Christian typo of manhood, or not?" Mr M'Donald answered. "It is not." The third question was: "Does tho virtuo of temperance, like all others, not depend on the voluntary reception of Christian doctrine, and is moral suasion, therefore, not more offopf.ivo in producing; a strong peopleV 1 Mr M'Donald answered, "Certainly." Fourth question: "Would it be wise, in the present tstalo of society, to abolish the sale of all intoxicating liquors whatever?" Mr M'Donald answered "No"; and the last question I asked, "Would it, iii your judgment, not bo better to secure a-certain number of hotels (say, one to every 1000 or 1200 of' n population), have them under tho strictest control, to observe all tho laws, and the men who conduct them to bo of high moral character and good repute?" and lo this question Mr M'Donald answered "Ye.'." 1 cannot understand that Mr M'Donald should say that these questions were "not asked " about any particular colony, but as "mere thereofical questions," when, on the very first line of my lot lor to him' I siaied lhai the question bulked very largely iii New Zealand; and that they were asked with a view "of influencing tins puolic juind." Mr M'Donald cannot,suppose v that I should ask qustions in New Zealand to influence the public mind in Canada,.and when lie save "that it was a gross misrepresentation to mention Ins name as one 'who favours the drink traffic, it might, be as well for Mr Nicholls to ask Uim to explain the meanifig of his affirmative answer to the question that it would be better to have one hotel to every 1000 or 1200 of a population. Ido not desiro to criticise Mr M'Donald any further, as I am quite euro that Mr Nicholls has wickedly misrepresented my position on the temperance question. "The very questions I have asked represent, (hat which 1 believe, and I should be clad to soo (lie Government introduce a Bill into Parliament somewhat on the lines of Lord Peel's echorco, giving a certain number of hotels pro rata to the population, having thoni to keep Ihc 'laws and otherwise improving them in keeping with modern requirements and tho spirit of the times. With your permission, I should like to show your readers how thoroughly deceptive and dishonest are the questions which 'Mr Nicholls asked on behalf of tlio TJ.T.R.C. (a nondescript sort of body as irresponsible as unknown). These questions arc deceptive ami dishonest as they would lead Mr M'Donald and others lo whom they were addressed to misunderstand my position, or, in some cases, to think that I. was hostile. ' For example, "Do you consider that tho method of dealing with the liquor traffic, known as Local Option, is contrary to Christian principles?" This question would lead Mr M'Donald to believe that I am opposed to local option. I nmnot. and jio'ono knows holler than Mr Nisholls that I havo never said or written a single word against tho peoplo having the power of dealing with tho liquor traffic. - _Mr Nicholls knows verywell that I said in your contemporary recently that I should not take the power out of tho hands of the people, and I would most certainly oppose any effort in that dirc-otion. But Ido object, to tho peoplo being gulled inio voting No-license, which, means absolute prohibition of tho salo where carried and leads to an untold amount of private drinking, sly grogging, and deception. Mr Nieholls's other questions wore written in very much the same style, and do not convey to those to - whom they.wero addressed a truthful statement of whot No-liccnso means in New Zealand. They are tricky, partial, and half truths. Did Mr Nicholls toll Mr M'Donald what Nolicense actually means in New Zealand? Did ho tell him that wherever No-license is carried it means ( that no liquor can ho sold on any account? Did ho tell him that if any person in a no-liccnso area wanted liquor he would require to send elsewhere to get it, andthat his name, address, and quantity ordered would bo notified lo tho police. Ho might, then ask. .as I did, whether such repression was likely to produce a nobler and more Christian type o£ manhood or not. Mr Nicholls appears lo think that theory and practice may. differ, and I cannot help thinking that it is this loose morality whieli permitted him at, ono time to basely bask in "pretty barmaids' smiles," which ho himself shamelessly confessed when he was a candidate for cheap drinks and vulgar Birtsttions, as it now prompts him to vilify all those who differ from him. A little time ago when I exposed him as, "Yorkshire Tvkc"' and other aliases, he declared with much affected superiority that ho would take no further notice of me. It is rather a pity for his own waning reputation that he baa not kept his ,vord. I may cay that I expect to be in Dingwall this summer, and I shall endeavour to sec Mr M'Donald on the subject.— I am, etc., Wm. Tiiomsox.