"BOYCOTTING" IN AUCKLAND.

Observer, Volume 2, Issue 38, 4 June 1881, Page 413

" BOYCOTTING" IN AUCKLAND.

We have heard many stories of shabby intimidation and coercion on the part of our big brewers, but till recently we never believed in them. The following yarn is, however, strictly true. Feeling the subject was too serious a one for trifling, we obtained a viva voce statement from the fountain-head (Messrs Hull Brothers), which is now given as it was taken down, and may be relied upon as strictly correct. Mr Hull said : — " Our storemau owns a piece of land in the Mount Eden district, and he attended a meeting of the inhabitants of the district called for the purpose of taking steps to oppose the licensing of another public-house in the neighbourhood. The man, independent of his feelings as a total abstainer, felt that the fact of having a hotel so near would depreciate the value of his property, and lie seconded one of the resolutions at variance with the public-house interest. This would not appear to be a very grave offence, but mark the result. The following morning on entering our office my brother and myself found Mr Lionel Phillips (the town manager for Messrs Ehrienfried Brothers) talking loudly to our storeman, who we heard say in * reply, ' Why should my sins be visited on Messrs Hull Brothers?' Mr Phillips then went out, and the storeman informed us that he (Mr P.) had been in to inform him that in consequence of the action he had taken Messrs JEhrenfried Brothers intended forthwith to remove all their goods from our bonded store. The storeman then proposed that he should follow Mr Phillips and offer to Avithdraw his opposition to the licensing of the hotel, that we might not' suffer loss through Messrs Ehrenfried's bonding being taken from us. This, however, we would not permit, and shortly after-

wards Mr Phillips returned and asked for his bonding account to date. We remonstrated with lain, and lie commenced to excuse himself, saying 1 , 'Of course you cannot blame me,' when we stopped him by remarking that in our opinion our storeman had a perfect right to exercise his privileges as a private citizen ; that we would not coerce him in any away ; that he had a right to do as he pleased, and that we declined to dis" cuss the point. Mr Phillips then lefC He has removed his goods from our store, and all "because one of our employees had the hardihood to object to a public-house being opened close to his dwelling - house." A more extraordinary story in connection with a large and up to now much respected iirm has never been made public. It is but fair to suppose that Mr Ehrcnfried himself knows nothing of these ungodly doings, and will repudiate them utterly, replacing his stores with the Messrs Hull, and thus justifying himself in the eyes of tlie people. Good heavens ! What are we coming to next? Is Auckland to be overridden by a firm of audacious beermongers ? Is it to be an understood thing that if my office -boy's father objects to the advent of a publichouse (with all its concomitant evils) in the district of his home, that I and all my friends are to be "boycotted" by the Messrs Ehrcnfried ! Take care, Mr Lionel Phillips, take care. More than one can play at the "boycotting" game, and it wouldn't at all surprise \is to find that after hearing of this disgraceful attempt at intimidation, numbers of people who have been in the habit of consuming Ehrenfried's beer foreswore it altogether. As for the Licensing Bench, if, with this expose vinder their noses, they favour the pub. in question, they are utterly unfit to administer the law. "The feeling of the district is strongly against it, and no attempted intimidation should prevail. Messrs. Hull Bros, deserve great kudos for their action in the matter. Many money-grubbers would have allowed their storeman to be bullied, and to sacrifice his self-respect rather than have stood a money loss. Not that Messrs. Hull really will lose anything. In the long run it will be the Messrs Ehrenfried that will sutler. Mr Lionel Phillips has cast a great slur on the name of the firm he represents, and one that people are very unlikely to forget. Every pub. with which the name of Ehrenfried is associated will now be strenuously opposed at licensing times not only by Good Templars, but by all Englishmen who love fair pla*- and abhor mean intimidation.