IN ANSWER TO MODERATE.

Southland Times, Issue 22733, 8 November 1935, Page 4

IN ANSWER TO MODERATE.

To the Editor. Sir, —Your correspondent “Moderate” ascribes to me many opinions which my letter certainly did not express. In the first place I did not proclaim any titles of distinction, but simply gave my naine and designation because, having no object to serve but the good of the community and no vested interests to protect, I refuse to slink behind a nom deplume, even so plausible a one as “Moderate.” Where an evil is sapping the lifeblood of the community, spoiling home life and threatening youth, any man with a spark of vision or of humanity can scarcely afford to be moderate. Again, Mr Editor, if Prohibition was responsible in America for all the crime “lawlessness and murder previously inconceivable,” can “Moderate” suggest for my enlightenment what has been responsible for the infinitely worse conditions since, for which Government records are my authority? lam only asking for information, Mr Editor. And will your correspondent explain this, which has been culled from the Boston Herald: “The bootlegger is more prosperous now than he was during the 14 years of prohibition,” or the New York Tribune’s statement: “Bootlegging is .bigger and better than ever it was during prohibition?” Or would “Moderate” prefer items from a distinctly liquor paper? In April, 1934, the Western Brewer reported results of local votes in Evanstown, Oak Park, River Forest, Glencoe and Winnetka, places where heavy votes in favour of repeal of prohibition had been registered. The results were a total “dry” vote of 29,531 against a “wet” vote of 7291, giving a “dry” majority of 22,240. The paper goes on to say: “Those residents of these communities who went out and worked for repeal were lined up with the *drys' in this more recent vote.” And, Mr Editor, listen to the wail of the president of the United States Brewers’ Association: “There is already a danger of drifting back towards prohibition unless a concerted fight is made against it!” And later on: “The present trend is sure to bring back State or National Prohibition within five years or less.” That’s it, Mr Editor. Liberate the snake, and he will certainly bite. In conclusion, Mr Editor, may I remind “Moderate” that Bluff and its hotels were not mentioned in my previous letter, and I cannot allow him to put statements into my mouth. Our hotels are as well conducted as those elsewhere, and as well as the nature of their business will allow.—l am, etc. A. E. WAITE, J.P. Methodist Minister and Mayor- of Bluff.