IN REPLY TO " ONLOOKER:"

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12658, 21 November 1905, Page 2

IN REPLY TO " ONLOOKER:"

To 'the Editor,

Sir, —There is always a tendency to shuffle on the part of anyone who isn't sure of his ground, or wishes to avoid a direct iesue. As a speciman of evasive shuffling the " Impressions'by Onlooker" of Saturday night's meeting, published by you in this morning's " Chronicle," are unique. He occupies one and a quarter columns of your paper with an allegedly 'humorous diatribe couched in characteristic Probibition phraseology, and written round a few mis-statements, several gross exaggerations, and many low-toned and unfair similies. What he could, not broadly asseverate with truth he wrote round and inferred with childish inuendo. Even those electors who have little or no liteiwy discrimination! will have sufficient instinct of what is coarse and contemptible to assess it at it's true value. He says, inter alia: — " Mr Palmer then went on to explain about the report of the meeting, which She 'bad instructed Mr Louis. Cohen to convey to 'the representative of the Press' Association, the truth of which -message, as you know, sir, has since 'been publicly denied." If the letters by iMr W. T. Benefield, in the same paper, are specimens of the denial referred to. they are not very convincing, as after a definite statement to the effect that no tapology was miade before the vote of thanks to the chair, he subsequently, in a fetter which was apparently an afterthought, admits that Mr Drake afterwards made a speech which might have ■been an apology. Is the fact that the speech was reserved till after the vote to the chair another Prohibition point, or is it another " now you see me, now you don't" double shuffle? —I am, etc., MERELY MARY ANN. To the Editor. Sir ; —-tf was present at the No-License meeting on Saturday night, and listened to Mr Palmer's speech. I must say, sir, tlhait the arguments he used were ridiculous in the ex&reme. Of course, he was doing (his best, but he was very badly advised in coming forward. For instance, in -the course of his speech he pointed out that if No-lLicense were carried be, 'his wife, his servants, and the inmates of (his hotel, totalling about 50, would be aib'le to each have a gallon of beer or a quart of spirits per day in 'his or her possession. What if they could, Mr Palmer ? Can they not do the same now, under License, and at the same time puirchass as much as they wMi at the bar? No-License will surely, by Mr Palmer's own showing, limit each inmate of his house to a gallon or a quart a day.—l am, etc., INQUIRER.