THE BERWICK CASE

Otago Witness, Issue 1602, 5 August 1882, Page 14

THE BERWICK CASE

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir -Being ft sporting friend, as your West Tajori correspondent chooses to call me, I am again agreeably blind to "ho meaning of the word, or ho would never for a inomen'. advoclto that a man holding a license for the sale of alcoholic liquors should bea total abaSr He W* he would not object in thus parScutar ease tJ both licenses being removed. How, then does ho co utromtly advocate the interests of t c d'ifl raiichised party ? With regard to the old pro8?b " Ottwo evils choose tho lost." your corrospon : dent verges on personality. If he has anything Snafi the character of tho landlord of tho Roya] Hotel let him say so in a straightforward manner ; no Boclec'v is ; requlrcl-BOoret societies arc generally Snored by a , well-thinking public. Whether td ft din- a license is tenant or landlord in immaterial bo fa? the public is concerned. He m licooßod to puppTy, and they are open to receive. . This little bit of one-sided argument 1 throw back in his teeth. Again, he ear -that he haa alvmjw acted independently. I maintain in the face of the world that no imn acting' under a seal of secrecy can hold such a position. Rotoning to Wsroporlo/ knowledge with, regard to the liconsrug system, 'he displays a certain amount of weakness. 1 quoted the inspector's report dated Juno 17th , and overlooked the report laid, before go 'Commissioners at the flirt , mecUng cm Juno 3rd, which was all that was ltiiulred. Your conespondent also says that cerfr.ii. interested parties wore open to bet between the first "id second meeting* that tho license ot the Royal Hotel would be retained. Being in pos-ies-sion of thin knowledge from his secret coui'dant or confidante w a,, honest citizen why did he not lay the matter before tho public to whose interests ho is so devoted t And now for the arbitrary manner in which he says the Commissioners arrived at their decision. He argues the landlord of the Commercial was the rarly evidently "boycotted." By whom? I assume by the Committee, some of whom he hold* in groat reject. Hero he makes a contradiction. How can a man hold in re-peet a public eorvant who in the discharge of his duty yields to his own private feelings, and neglects the interests of the public to whom ho is pledge I? Such, I conclude, is nothing more nor less than the essence of imagination on the part of your 'correspondent and his secret informew. His other little weaknesses aro beneath my notice. So, hoping y..u will ovcuso my trespassing so much on your valuable apace, I shall bid this utalo subject adieu. -I am, &c, T -p.

Henley, August Ist.