A CORRECTION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 95, 5 December 1911, Page 5

A CORRECTION.

(To the Editor “Stratford Post.”) Sir, —It was' decided by yourself that you would accept no matter bearing on the license question after Saturday last, from either representatives of the no-license party or the licensed victuallers, or supporters of either side, and very properly that matter was . at your own discretion. I am, however, writing to you to ask that, as a matter of absolute fairness, I may be allowed to correct one statement which—probably through a lack of full comprehension of the matter he was dealing with—fell from the lips of Mr. J. Masters in the Town Hall on Sunday night, and was duly reported in your columns on Monday. I do not wish in any way to open up the general issues, but as possibly Mr. Masters had mistakenly taken the figures to refer to the effect local noliconse would have on the Borough finances, I desire to point out this mistake. It is clear, however, from the context of the circular, and obvious from the statistics supplied therein, that National No-License, in other words, Dominion Prohibition, is taken as the basis of the calculations. I point this out in order that the position may be quite definite and clear. After' a careful perusal of the circular iu question, 1 can nowhere see in it the statement that “the loss in license fees would be £619,” with which Mr. Masters charges it, and I would suggest to Mr. Masters and others who may happen to have the paper, that they look through it carefully again. Surely they know that the Trade would not bo responsible for making such a transparently inaccurate statement as that, with the risk of immediate exposure, seeing that the amounts of the license fees paid are matters of common knowledge. The comparisons made are not based on the loss to the community of the mere hotel and wholesale license fees, considerable as Mr. Masters himself (7\ per cent.) admits that loss to lie, but are based on this Borough’s prooortion (on its rateable valuation basis) of the revenue which would be lost (for which official Government figures from the N.Z. Year Book to the 31st March, 1911, are supplied in the cirnular) in the event of Prohibition being carried. The circular most fairly, to my mind, states that lost revenues would have either to be made up by direct Government taxation or by way of indirect (rates) taxation. If the Former were assumed, we know what it would amount to, approximately £1 per head, if tiie latter method wore adopted’(as in the circular) it would amount (on the Borough of Stratford’s present valuation) to the £619 stated. The working out is merely a matter of arithmetic. With reference to the latter portion of Mr. Masters’ remarks, in which he takes personal ground, I can only repeat let Mr. Masters read the leaflet once

more, carefully, and I think that he will see that no offence is either intended or expressed towards himself or “the majority of the people of tins Dominion.’’—l am. etc., W. P. KIRKWOOD* [The request seems to us a perfectly fair one in tho circumstances, and we insert the letter, if Mr. Masters desires to maintain his position—of course on the point referred to only—-w-3 shall be pleased to give him space to do so.—Ed. “Stratford Post.”]