CORRESPONDENCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 5495, 24 January 1907, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

NO-LICENSE. (To the Editor). Sir,—lt is becoming almost proverbial for writers in the cause of License to start straight from seratcli by throwing mud at their opponents. Your correspondent, " Auti-Prokibi-tionist," is.no exception to the rule. He speaks of forms of insanity. 1 will endeavour by fair argument t to compel him to withdraw the insult. I believe in the bare majority, but I do not " rave " about it as your correspondent impudently suggests. After duo consideration, I am 01 the opinion that if representation on a population basis is sound, then the distribution of hotels on the same basis is sound also. Mv friend clings to the opinion that no-license produces sly-grog selling, i deiv him, or any man breathing, to prove- that License is a cure /it It can easily -be proved that more slv-grog selling, takes plaoe in license districts than is tho case where licenses are non-existent, lias my friend read the papers, I wonder ? The significant' thing, about,the whole thing is that'where there are most licenses there is most sly-grog, selling, n every license district no-lioenso obtains from closing time until opening time is that not so? Now according to that great authority "Anti-Praln-bitionist," no-license produces slygrog selling, which in this, case simply means selling after hours and on Sundays, etc. My friend must either stand to his own arguments, and oEfend those friends who are perhaps praying to be saved %m him, or ho must withdraw the statement that no-, license produces sly-grog selling. Hav ing asserted that no-license produces sjy-gjrog soiling, I ask him to- bo a man, and produce reliable .evidence to that effect. I don't want to hear anjrt bald statement that cannot bo substantiated. " Our friends the enemy " can talk a lot, mostly ridicule, but as for proof, why, they haven't got any. My friend reverts to the old bogey of drank in the homo. Does he think that people don't, keep driink in the home under license ? Of course they do. If drink is dangerous in the home, I presume it is also, dangerous in the community My friend also assumes—in fact states point blank-that women never fw :' qiient grog-shops (I presume he means ! licensed premises) ; I say with the greatest regret that they do, not only so, but they can be' seen taking drink '■ home. I am not blind. " Anii-Prohi-bit'ionist" dares to preach -the most inhuman of all doctrines, that a drunkard is not worth saving. Indeed, what can equal man's inhumanity to man?. But then, what can you expect from a man who confesses that, ho consumed thirty times as; much drink, given to him by a friend, as he would have consumed if he had had to pay for it himself. That's friendship with a vengeance. He misquotes mo in regard to the position m Ashburton, and consequently makes remarks which are utterly unintelligible. - There are several other "points in his letter, but I feel sure he is as innocent as a new-born baibo as to their existence ; therefore I will leave, him alone in his glory.-!