LIQUOR AND THE SHOW.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 22, 20 August 1917, Page 3

LIQUOR AND THE SHOW.

Hs ' ! t j DISCUSSION BY GENERAL COMMITTEE. recommendation affirmed. At the monthly meeting of the general committee of the Stratford A. and P. Association on Saturday, the question of a liquor booth being permitted at the annual show was the subject of further discussion, during which members freely ventilated their opinions for and against. It will he remembered that at the annual meeting in June the voting against the closing of the booth was 14 to 13, but at a general committee meeting in July a recommendation to the executive that there he no booth on the ground was carried by .16 to 11. 'i hen followed a notice of motion to rescind the decision, which wqs put in by Mr E. H. Linnell.

Speaking to the motion, at Saturday’s meeting, Mr Linnel said the j first thing was the legal aspect. As I the question had been dealt: with at j the annual'meeting, he asked, should it be turned down by the few members of the committee who were champions •of the no-liquor question ; secondly, there was the benefit to the show. The subject, had been the cause of a good deal of’ ill-feeling, which was not desirable for the best management.of affairs. He instanced the case where he had got two new members for the Association and had four ready to sign, but as a result ot happenings in which some other men referred to certain members of the Association and the attitude on the liquor question,. he lost what he considered four members to the Association. Another aspect was , members’ freedom of action —if a man wanted a drink, he should be allowed to have it. If the beef-drinkers were to organise a movement to abolish tea from the ground, it would soon cause trouble. Then it would mean the loss of £2l to the Association, and they were not in a position to lose, so much. It should be remembered that they were striving to get men members.’ 'Hid the public want liquor abolished? The last electoral returns showed they voted solidly for license. He contended that it would not be wise for the Association ..to stop the liquor. Mr C. Jackson seconded the motion. He was quite satisfied that it would be in fclie' best interests of the Association tojhayp the booth. The President said that there was' only a recommendation to the executive to abolish liquor, and a recommendation was not binding. When the original motion was brought up it was turned for a mpnth, so that it could he considered, and it was carried by a fairly large majority, it was a knotty point which had cropped up during past years. The question was,'Would they get £2l for the privileges. »Mr T. Walker interjected, offering foygive a cheque for £3O for the privileges. ' Continuing, the President said they' had no liquor at the working-bee. He reminded them that 180,000 people in the Dominion had signed the six o’clock closing petition, and The Efficiency. Board hatPi’ecommended abolishing liquor tilt the war was over. Mr Linnell remarked that the Cabinet Minister had said that it was impossible to carry out the recommendations. Mr G. 1). Solo said if there was any ill-feeling it was from one side only; If they could not run the Show without liquor they would he in a unique position. He mentioned that one of the most successful race meetings had been fun without liquor. In a certain town the' authorities closed the hotels while the, troops, were on leave. He was, however, willing- to abide by the majority’s ruling. Mr H. Harrison said that at the annual meeting ,the recommendation for bio liquor w.aH turned down, and that should have been ti-e end of it. Mr J. S. Jones said that 1 when the vote was taken the attendance had dwindled down to 27.

Mr B. ()rr was of the opinion that they should abide by tile decision of, the annual meeting. He thought they should hold the question up till next annual meeting. Mr E. W, Hancock said that a show was different frqm a race meeting. There were more women and children at a show., If. they were going to lose members on one side, why not on the other ? 'l.’hr press tent episode got too much publicity, and lie heard that some members w.ere gomg to withdraw over it. Mr Jackson: “Why didn’t they do it before”?,. , . Mr E. Mar fell said the argument of seceding should cut both ways; if not, they were paying a great compliment to the “wowser” section.. There were special reasons why thy Association should do without liquor at the present time. Mr W. H. Rutledge remarked that if such a small sum as £ls or £2O was necessary to keep the Association afloat, they should let it silik. When Masterton was cited as a case where a show was successfully run without liquor, Mi: I). O’Sullivan said that as Master!on was a no-license district they could not get liquor if they wanted it. Mr R. McK. Morison said lie took

it as a high compliment that they were going to lose members on one side and not on the other. He h.a stood to his guns for five or six years but there was no ill-feeling on his part. He, aftired his .determination to bring, up the question in future every time he got the chance,, because he believed it < was right. On a vote being taken, the motion was lost, the voting being 14 to 10. Several members did not vote, though the Chairman said he would like to know the full feeling of the meeting. *