TWO GAOL BREAKERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20289, 23 December 1927, Page 10

TWO GAOL BREAKERS.

ADDITIONAL TEEMS IMPOSED. (Per United Press Association.) , AUCKLAND, December 22. Two habitual criminals —William Henry Grant, aged 33, and Robert James Brydone, aged 39—were sentenced to additional terms of tow years’ hard labour and six months respectively for gaol breaking. In the former’s case Mr Justice Reed took into account the serious assault on the warder. CORRUPT POLITICAL PRACTICES AND THE LICENSING ISSUE. TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —Your paper is not a comic one in tho ordinary sense, but still it affords food for amusement now and again. The latest samples were in letters signed “Anti-Cohesion” and “ Dabymple.” If these exhibit tho high liquor mark in exposition in favour of the liquor trade, then it is in a very perilous condition.! The most redeeming feature of these letters is that with unprejudiced thinking people they will helji to bring in the high “ water ” mark of prohibition. They were excellent examples of Satan rebuking sin.— 1 am, etc., December 22. Prohibitionist. Sir, —Tho erudite advocate of prohibition who signs himself “ Liberty ’’ (forsooth) professes to be unable to see anything dishonest or reprehensible in an obviously corrupt action performed by prohibitionists. Upon my word I believe these people really are unable to see it! , Their, unctuous rectitude enables them to sanctify all their own deeds, corrupt and incorrupt. Wo have scon this attitude throughout history, and always displayed in a rotten cause. It docs not matter much, but I wonder if this “Liberty” is the same who in another journal under date 13tb inst., penned the following precious words;— “ The methods of tho prohibitionists are also condemned, but apart from the uncompromising hostility and the public request for pledges from candidates (who ought to and can refuse tho same when they think them inadvisable) I do not think their methods open to attack or condemnation.” If this rigmarole moans anything at all, it means that the methods of prohibitionists are open to attack and condemnation in respect of the practice named. But doubtless “ Liberty’s ” mental outfit has enabled him to sanctify the practice .during the last 10 days. I do not propose to criticise any further effusions you may receive from Liberty.” His letters are a valuable contribution to the cause ho opposes, and for that reason alone ho really ought to be encouraged.— I am, etc.. ‘ - Anti-Coercion. Sir, —My attention has been called to a letter appearing in your issue of December 14 signed by Mr R. D Poison, hon. secretary, U.T.R.C. in which he endeavours to connect me with tho activities and policy of tho New Zealand Sports Protection League regarding candidates for Parliament. This letter is practically an exact copy word for word of an anonymous letter signed “ Consistency,” which appeared in tho Dominion (Wellington) in its issue of August 6—four mouths ago. In tho correspondence which followed in tho columns of that journal I made it clear that I was neither an officer nor a member of the Sports Protection League, nor have I anything to do with its policy. At tho time 1 challenged _ “Consistency ” to play the game by making his identity known, but he steadily refused to come out from ambush. It is an extraordinary thing that this four-months-old anonymous letter should now appear in your journal signed by Mr R. D. Poison. I enclose the page from tho Dominion of August 6, in which it appeared, and would bo grateful if you would kindly footnote this letter indicating to your readers whether or not Mr Poison’s letter is in the main a word for wotd copy of the anonymous letter which appeared in tho Dominion. —I am, etc., R. A. Armstrong, Dominion Secretary,New Zealand Licensing Reform Association. Wellington, December 21. [Tho letter in our issue of the 14th inst. was almost completely a transcript of the letter in tho Dominion of August 6. Had wo known this at the time, tho letter would not have boon inscrtcd.-En., O.D.T.] THE TENURE OF HOTEL LICENSES. TO THE EDITOR. gnq—lt seems as though even a review of the business for the year cannot be asked from representatives of the liquor traffic without tho repetition of that threadbare, painfully mocking, and altogether ridiculous pica that insecurity ot tenure with regard to tho bar trade makes impossible improvements in another portion of the hotels. Please allow me to make brief .statements which are not open to refutation from any supporter of the liquor traffic. One is that the accommodation tenure in New Zealand hotels is perpetual, and no attempt has ever been made to interfere with it, except, perhaps, with a view to improvement. Second, it requires a particularly obtuse or prejudiced mind til face less travelling . and need for accommodation at hotels when the millions now spent on drink are expended in other ways, a portion of them undoubtedly going in holi-day-making. Thirdly, and most important of all. the licensed liquor traffic holds its license with the full knowledge that society reserves the right to foreclose upon it ns a dangerous influence at anytime, and has no shadow of right to security of tenure for bar trade for a year, month, or day until it grants to I society the same security of tenure in ; regard to home joys, comforts, prosperity, i and general well-being. !

Put in a nutshell, the position is that whereas no attack his been, or will he, made on the domestic or accommodatinn sidi- of hotel business, .Hie liquor traffic maintains a constant increasing offensive against, that side of home life. The trade representatives are asking for that which they are not willing, or able, to give to the public.— I am, etc.,

December 22. Liberty