The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1902. THE LICENSING COMMITTEE AND THE VICTUALLERS' INDICTMENT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11737, 15 September 1902, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1902. THE LICENSING COMMITTEE AND THE VICTUALLERS' INDICTMENT.

The, secretary of the Wanganui Licensed Victuallers1 Association, in his letter of Saturday morning last, and which was written in reply to our article of the previous morning, says that we were partially right in some of our statements, but "largely incorrect in others, particularly in those referring to Mr Willis." In the first place, it must be remembered, we were, as we distinctly pointed out, referring for the most part to rumours which were current. It will also ba remembered that those rumours were freely associated with the name of the member for the district, and therefore, if we accept Mr McCarthy's letter as the official answer of the Association, we may fairly assume that it is only those statements which refer to Mr Willis that are questioned. We may say at once that we do accept Mr McCarthy's letter as an official, and not as a personal, communication, and it is as such that we propose to deal with it. To begin with, the first statement made by the secretary on behalf of the Association is* incorrect. He says: "Recently the chairman (Mr Ketttle) invited the president of the Licensed Victuallers' Association to state the grievances of the trade." As a matter of fact Mr Kettle did nothing of the kind. He simply asked Mr HopeGibbons, not as president of the Association, but as an individual complainant, to state his personal grievances against the Committee. We are not concerned as to how that invitation came to be construed into a general invitation to the Association: it is enough for usi to know that no evidence can be adduced in support of the statement that such an invitation was extended to tho trade. However, the Association! saw fit to assume that the invitation was an open one, and the outcome of that assumption was the indictment to which we referred in our previous articfe. Mir McCarthy eupplies <fche teat of the concluding paragraph of the radictmenfy in which, the hope js expressed

trail "Mr Kettle will see his way to ask for a commission of inquiry, with power to call witnesses." Mr McCarthy adds -that Mr Kettle declined to comply with tho ' request, and that Mr Willis was then asked to see the Minister of Justice with a view to having the inquiry held. Seeing that Mr Ketttle had never extended the invitation upon the strength of which the indictment was framed, it was not to be expected that he Avould recognise it or accede to the request by which it was accompanied. Moreover, to the lay comprehension, it ap- . pears just a trifle ridiculous that a body of presumably intelligent business men should seriously expect a public officer to ask the head of his department to authorise an inquiry into charges, preferred against him by an interested section of the community. We do not suppose for a moment that the Association ever expected that the request would be acceded to. Indeed we are inclined to think that the request itself was merely an after-thought, stuck in at the end of the indictment. Certainly there was nothing in the originally published intentions of the Association to indicate that such a request was contemplated. At the meeting of the Association held in July last it was resolved that a statement setting out the alleged grievances of the trade be compiled, that ;t be pub! shed (this, in view of the absence of publication since its preparation, is significant), and that copies be sent to the Committee, to the Minister of Justice, to the Acting-Premier, and to members of Parliament. Evidently the members responsible for moving the Association did not .contemplate an inquiry at the time they authorised the pub~oation of this resolution. If they did then contemplate an inquiry, they must stand self-condemned of an unfair intention to deliberately prejudice the Minister, Parliament, and the public against the chairman and members of the Licensing Committee by securing the widest possible publication of their grievances. We do not think that the Association can .claim any credit because of the non-publication, in the manner originally intended, of the indictment. We have heard —and the secretary of the Association will no doubt be able to tell us whether or not the statement is true —that the representatives of the Association did endeavour to secure the publication of the indictment in the "Herald," but that the editor of that paper, after a careful perusal of the statements contained in the lengthy document, declined to accept the risk and responsibility of publishing it. We have not heard that the Association offered to indemnify the paper against possiDxe loss, but tihe secretary will probably enlighten us on this point also. The fact that the Association now .courts the publication of the indictment at the hands of Mr Kettle (publication under those circumstances being immune from oostly legal consequences) lends a little colour to the rumour as to the futile effort to obtain publication in the "Herald," and. to some extent justifies the assumption that the Association .is now afraid to publish, at its own risk, the statements and allegations which it has seen fit to reduce to writing. This assumption is strengthened by the reception which the document met with at the hands of the Minister of Justice. The -non. Mr McGowan, as became a straightforward, fearless, conscientious, and independent Minister, wrote declining to interfere in any way with the Committee. Upon receipt of this communication a meeting of members of the Association was held, and to this conference Mr A. D. Willis, as member for the district, was invited. Mr Willis- attended the meeting, and was, as Mr McCarthy says, requested to see the (Minister with a yew to having the inquiry held. Mr Willis did so, and the Minister again, replied declining to alter his former decision. It ii? fair to assime, further, that had the alleged grievances been worthy of serious, consideration —had the statement contained anything which might reasonably have been construed into evidence supporting the complaint of long-continued tyranny—the Minister would have acted differently. The action of the Hon. Mr McGowaai may therefore be cited in support of our previously expressed supposition that suck statements in the indictment as were not libellous were ludicrous. So much for the indictment. Mi* McCarthy further claims that the victuallers have as much right to approach Mr Willis, as member, on any matter affecting their interests as has any other section of the community. With this contention we quite concur. It is nob the right, but the method of exercising it, to which we take excepton. ' The ordinary method of procedure is for the people interested f o decide among themselves what it is they want of the member, and then to approach .him by deputation. It is no duty of the member's to attend private and confidential conferences, of interested persons. Mr McCarthy says he writes "in justice to Mr Willis," but on the one point which most seriously affects Mr Willis he is absolutely silent. In our article of Friday morning last we mentioned tliat it \w being rumoured that Mr Willis, when he attended the victuallers' meeting, had been told by a member that he had "got to help us get Kettle shifted." We pointed out that this was only a rumour, but that, in the interests of Mr Willis himself and of the Association its truth or falsity should be made known, tve stated that if Mr Willis would give the public his word that he was not aftked, directly or indirectly, to use his influence in the manner indicated by the rumour, we would accept his word' aa truth. We again ask Mr Willis, who is art) present in town, to say whether or not there is any truth in the rumou-, and, if there is, to make known who it was that dared to solicit his add in giving effect to so corrupt and abominable a proposal. As we j have said, Mr McCarthy says nothing with regard to this point. Are we to assume that our statement wit-* regard to thei rumour is among those which the secretary

of the Association officially admits to be "partially correct" ? The portion of Mr McCarthy's letter in which he states that Mr Willis was authorised to communicate to Mr Kettle the intentions of the Association is very satisfactory. This, certainly, is a point iv favour of the Association. It seems to indicate that the Association had no intention of stabbing Mi' Kettle in the dark. That being so, it may be taken for granted that any communication made to Mr Kettle or the Committee by Mr Wills with reference to what took place at the conference was not of a confidential character. Mr Kettle not being under any confidential obligations, will, we presume, be at liberty to make public whatever Mr Willis may hav3> to-di Mm. In the interests of Mi- Willis and of the Association, and for the satisfaction of the public, we purpose asking Mr Kettle to supply us, for publication, with a statement of all Mr Willis's communications (verbal or written) to him on the subject.