“The drinking down there is terrible,'’ said Mrs Ford at Caversham last night when speaking of Tahakopa, where she carries on Baptist Church work. “Liquor is sold at £l a bottle almost as openly as cordial,” she added, “so the effect upon the people has been very demoralising.” Gambling is rife, but the general behaviour is very different from what it was when I first went down. There is now very little hooliganism. She concluded by remarking that the most impression was made through service with the broom, scrubbing brush, and dishcloth. -Evening Star, 4/6/1925.
QUERIES AND QUANDARIES
"Truth Would Like To Know — Whether a certain section of the community in No-license Tahakopa (South Otago) are not going unduly out of. their way to harass a woman social worker who alleged that gambling and drinking were rife in the locality, or whether the action of certain individuals in placing basket bombs under the woman's house and generally molesting her was prompted by the fact that the truth sometimes hurts? -NZ Truth, 4/7/1925.
As an instance in a British community of the very antithesis of what is termed British fair play, the happenings at Tahakopa narrated in a letter which we publish this morning are calculated to create a very unfavourable impression. Last week, in an address before the Baptist Conference in Dunedin, Mrs Ford, who is a worker for the Baptist Church at Tahakopa — where no license obtains — stated that she was sorry to say that drinking and gambling were rife in that district, and that whisky was sold almost as openly as cordials. The statement was duly reported in our columns. To this presumably is attributable the sequel, which Mrs Ford describes in her letter. It can only be assumed that the demonstration against Mrs Ford, which is recorded in her letter to us, was an act of retaliation for her outspoken remarks at the meeting in Dunedin. The account which the victim of this outrage gives of the affair is plain and unvarnished and free from evidence of rancour. The occurrence is a distressing revelation of the sort of thing that may happen in an isolated country district. The persons who, knowing that the nearest constable was miles away, thus subjected a widow and her children to a cowardly attack under cover of night, have brought their district into an unenviable prominence, and could hardly have chosen a method of argument more calculated to convince the public generally that there was justification for the statements that were made at the Baptist Conference. Not Mrs Ford, but the perpetrators of this outrage, have besmirched the fair name of Tahakopa, and the residents of the district as a whole will find some difficulty in obliterating the impression that must be created. It is for them to fake some action in such a matter. The opinion expressed by Mrs Ford, on behalf of herself and others, that a resident constable is needed at Tahakopa is entitled to the attention of the proper authorities. Nothing can undo the outrage to which attention has been drawn, but all who have a sense of chivalry and fair play must hope that the perpetrators may yet be brought to book. -Otago Daily Times, 10/6/1925.
AN OUTRAGE IN TAHAKOPA
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — It will be of interest to your readers to learn that the statement made by me at the Baptist Conference, held in Dunedin on June 3, respecting the sale of whisky in Tahakopa and its demoralising effect upon the men has brought about some startling results.
On the evening of June 6 a raid was made on my cottage. Large basket bombs were set off on and under the verandah. Great stones were thrown on to the roof and through the windows — one with such force that broken glass flew across the room, and the stone fell close to the couch upon which a lad was lying. Splintered glass scattered across the floor to the opposite side of the room. The language of the men who took part in the outrage was of a most revolting character, and all was directed upon my head.
I want the public to take a good look at this picture: Night; a cloud of men with bombs and stones. A widow and her children; the constable over 20 miles away. Truly the courage of drinking men is a thing to marvel at. And all this; Sir, because I dared to put my finger on the thing that is ruining the district. And please remember, Sir, that this is their way of trying to convince the public that there is no truth in my report. Sir, I can truthfully say I am voicing the opinion of all the decent men and women of Tahakopa — and they are many — when I urge upon the authorities its need of a resident constable.— I am, etc., Alice S. Ford. Tahakopa, June 8. -Otago Daily Times, 10/6/1925.
TAHAKOPA AMENITIES.
TO THE EDITOR Sir, — It was with feelings of much amazement, and not a little disgust, that I read in the Times of June 1 the rather bitter attack on the people of Tahakopa by Mrs Ford at a gathering of the Baptist Union in Dunedin. Surely it was very bad taste on the part of the lady to attack the characters of the people of a district where she obtains her living. Since Mrs Ford came here she has received nothing but the kindest treatment from the people, and now, metaphorically speaking, of course, she turns and bites the hand that feeds her. I can assure you, Sir, that the decent people down this way resent very keenly the slanderous insult hurled at them through the public press. Mrs Ford can hardly expect to find her future lot in Tahakopa quite so pleasant as it has been in the past.
— I am, etc., Sawmiller.
[Our correspondent apparently approves of the conduct that was described by Mrs Ford in our issue of Wednesday. Perhaps he considers that was in very good taste.— Ed. O.D.T.] -Otago Daily Timed, 12/6/1925.
TAHAKOPA AMENITIES.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — With inference to Mrs Ford’s letter in your issue of 10th inst., I would like to state, in fairness to the "larrikin element” and the public of Tahakopa, that Mrs Ford has made a. mountain out of a molehill.
In her letter Mrs Ford paints a very vivid picture, carrying a wide appeal for public sympathy. She writes of a cloud of men with bombs and stones, and of a widow and her children, etc. This statement gives your readers the impression that she was in the cottage which was stoned. Allow me to disillusionise them. The cottage in question was occupied by a married couple and their family, who deserve every sympathy. Now, Sir, I have been in this district for over nine years, and, in giving my opinion with regard to the conduct of the men in Tahakopa, I am also expressing the opinion of many other residents here, when I say that, considering the great opportunities offered for violent action, etc., by reason of their isolation, their behaviour is remarkably good. I do not believe that the recent stone-throwing was actuated by Mrs Ford’s references to the alleged sale of liquor here, as she suggests, but merely because of her statement to the effect that she was responsible for the good behaviour of the “hoodlums” here, this being quite contrary to fact.
In conclusion, I must say that I quite agree with Mrs Ford’s ideas of Christianity when she says that one should be as ready to kneel and scrub a sick woman’s floor as to pray by her bedside, but why not carry out those views? In two cases Mrs ford has positively refused to do either.
— I am, etc., Fred Moir. Tahakopa, June 13. -Otago Daily Times, 15/6/1925.
DISTURBANCES AT TAHAKOPA.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir — Allow me as a permanent settler in this stormy little Burg to give my views on the recent dastardly outrage, the perpetrators of which were not, as some people would try to make us believe, irresponsible youths, but grown men, two of them I believe married and with families What a wonderful example of bravery they are setting their children — for no doubt, sitting by the fire these cold nights, they will be boasting of what they did. It is a failing of this sort of individual, and you can imagine the innocent children “taking it all in” and vowing to emulate the deeds of their fathers, when they grow up. Can you wonder, when I tell you that there are decent people in this community who, having put up with hooliganism for a long time, are now talking quite desperately; and if these persons are not brought to book you can look for very serious developments, for this is not the only case, as thus sort of thing happens very frequently. You will cease to wonder when I tell you that a gambling school has been running quite openly for the past two years every Sunday, and the participants never fail to have an 18-gallon keg of beer on tap. Children going to and coming from Sunday School hear some of the most vile language imaginable and there are to my knowledge five houses where whisky and rum are sold quite openly at £1 per bottle. You can see, therefore, that Mrs. Ford's remarks about drinking and gambling were not exaggerated, but on the contrary, were put very mildly. For exposing this sort of thing this most estimable lady must be stoned to death, for that is the verdict of the “Bootleggers.” On the night of our local sports meeting, when some showmen and their womenfolk, who, through lack of accommodation camped in a tent on the grounds, a couple of these heroes tried to force their attention on the women. They were quickly put to rout by the menfolk, but they mustered up reinforcements and sallied forth to battle, armed with lengths of timber that would fell an ox. Then ensued one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of hooliganism this country has ever witnessed. It was pitiful to see these showmen leaving next morning, some of them being carted on stretchers — and this after paying for the privilege of setting up their booths. I understand there was a constable in the vicinity, but nobody was brought to book. You can imagine to what length the hoodlums will go when I tell you that on Friday night, when the police were scarcely one hundred yards away, they repeated the performance of casting stones through Mrs Ford’s windows. The time has come when we must have a constable stationed here. Otherwise some of us will require permission to carry firearms. In conclusion, I would dedicate to Mrs Ford St. Matthew chapter 5 verses 10, 11, and 12.
— I am, etc. Cockatoo. Tahakopa, June 15. -Otago Daily Times, 17/6/1925.
News in Brief
A Tahakopa resident told a Clutha Leader representative last week that there was still a good deal of unrest in that township in connection with the recent utterances of Mrs Ford. Fearing that there might be a repetition of the attack on Mrs Ford's house, some of the residents who support her views have banded together for the purpose of guarding the approaches to her house at night time. Police officers have been in Tahakopa making investigations during the past week or so, and developments are expected. -Otago Daily Times, 22/6/1925.
It is rumoured, says the Clutha Free Press, that there was something in the nature of an attempt at lynching at Tahakopa the other night, when a well-known citizen of that busy little locality came near to being pushed into the river. -Southland Times, 24/6/1925.
THE TAHAKOPA TROUBLE.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In the correspondence columns of your issue of June 16 Mr Fred Moir laid certain charges against me, and as no letter from me in answer to his has appeared in your paper it is being freely circulated in the district that these charges must he true. I therefore seek this opportunity of informing your readers that on the evening of June 15, at the Tahakopa Post Office, I posted an answer to Mr Moir’s letter, but I have since learned that this letter did not reach your office.
There is now no need that I should answer Mr Moir’s letter in a general sense, for it has been well answered; but that letter contained two items which have placed me in a false light. Mr Moir said I was not in the cottage on the night of the raid, and by that statement he would have your readers believe I was away from the premises. As a matter of fact, together with my 11-year-old daughter, I occupied a small bedroom that night in our hut, situated only a few yards from the cottage. Stones were thrown on this building, and glass was broken; indeed, so terrifying was the experience to my little daughter that she was ill during the remainder of the night and prostrate all the following day.
The other charge is of a still more serious nature. Mr Moir states that there have been two cases of sickness to which I positively refused to go. This statement does not contain one atom of truth, for never in my life, either here or elsewhere, have I refused to attend the sick.
Let me conclude by saying that Mr Moir has either wilfully misrepresented me or else he has been misinformed. If the latter, then I think the least he might have done, before rushing into print, was to make sure of his facts. I confess I find it easier to forgive those who, in the heat of passion, threw stones at my cottage, than to forgive a man who, in cold blood, and through the medium of the public press, throws mud at my character.
— I am, etc., Alice S. Ford. Tahakopa, July 23.
[The special circumstance mentioned in the above letter supplies the sole reason for the insertion of it after the publication of correspondence relating to the “raid” had been closed. — Ed. O.D.T.] -Otago Daily Times, 25/7/1925.
Rumours have been rife regarding police raids at Tahakopa in search of sly-grog, but inquiries elicited the response that there was nothing in it (reports the Free Press). The police officers visited Tahakopa merely to make inquiries. There was no raid. -Otago Daily Times, 1/8/1925.
DRINKING ORGIES
BAD STATE OF AFFAIRS AT TAHAKOPA.
(BY TELEGRAPH - PRESS ASSOCIATION) DUNEDIN, l0Th September. Tales of beer drinking orgies among the young male population of Tahakopa were unfolded in, the Magistrate's Court at Owaka yesterday, when Francis Daniel Smith, a bushman, was charged with keeping liquor for sale between 1st June and 31st August. Similar charges were made against Hugh McCann and William Anderson, but after the hearing of the first these were adjourned. The evidence showed that large swags of liquor were brought into the town and 18-gallon kegs were consumed at a sitting, thus, according to counsel for the defence, being practically the only form of amusement, with the exception of a weekly euchre tournament and two billiard tables available. Counsel also described Tahakopa as the last of the frontier towns.
After hearing lengthy evidence the Magistrate pointed out that the onus was on defendant to satisfy the Court that the liquor was not for sale, and he had succeeded in doing this. All the same, the evidence showed a low state of affairs in Tahakopa. Apparently all that young men there had to do for amusement was to get together and drink. The case would be, dismissed. The police were given leave to appeal. -Evening Post, 11/9/1925.
TAHAKOPA’S TOPERS
THE LAST FRONTIER TOWN
GOOD DRINKER'S AVERAGE TWO GALLONS A DAY
“He could easily drink a gallon of beer a day, and a good drinker could put away two gallons,” was the statement made by a bushman, Francis Daniel Smith, who was charged in the court at Owaka yesterday with keeping liquor for sale in a No-license area.
Stanley Whitty (clerk, in the employ of Speight and Co., Dunedin) produced the records of the firm showing transactions with the defendant Smith, who purchased in all 438 gallons. Similar records, showing an order for the purchase of a case of whisky, were produced by Alexander Todd Robertson (salesman in the employ of Milne, Bremner, and Co., wholesale wine and spirit merchants).
Constable Bonisch said that on September 3, with Sergeant Dunlop, he interviewed the defendant at Tahakopa. The list of liquor supplied was shown to him, and he had admitted that it was correct, and that he had received it all. The defendant had added that he thought ho had the right to “shout” his friends.
Mr O’Shea, for defendant, dilated upon the peculiar conditions of the place. It might be called the last of the frontier towns, and being a sawmilling town tradition died very hard there. The men were noted for their hard drinking, which was one of the traditions. Counsel added that there was nothing clandestine about the procedure. Briefly, the position was that, instead of giving bingo evenings, as the hostesses in town did, they gave beer evenings. They were quite within their rights. What might be an inordinate amount for a Dunedin man to drink might, he argued, be quite an ordinary thing for a Tahakopa citizen. It was his one outlet.
The defendant, in evidence, said that during the period mentioned in the information he disposed of an average of four and two-third gallons a week. His record was poor compared with some. Continuing, witness said that there were about thirty men where he was employed, and he knew them all intimately. Of a winter’s evening, when they had nothing to do, they would foregather over a game of cards, and the beer was always handy. Twenty men would “cut out” eighteen gallons inside of four hours. He could easily drink a gallon of beer a lay, and a good drinker could put away two gallons a day.
James Dunlop, farmer, of Tahakopa, said that he had been invited by Smith to have a drink any number of times, and he had never been asked to pay. There were even times when he was there without being invited. Witness went to defendant’s home to play draughts.
The Magistrate: How is it you become invited when you never return a shout?
Witness: I just happened to be there accidentally.
John Victor Craigie, a bushman, said that he was another of those who had been to the defendant’s house, and had had drinks there. The last time he was there over twenty others had been present. Witness had never been invited to pay for the liquor. He had been in Tahakopa three or four years, and had had three or four kegs during that time.
Other men gave evidence.
The Magistrate (Mr Dixon, S.M.) intimated that the onus placed on the defendant to satisfy the court that the liquor was not for sale had been met with the evidence for the defence. The defendant’s wages showed that he was well able to pay for the liquor, which would average only L1 a week. He had brought in only seventy-seven gallons in three months, and that was not a great quantity for men of this type. All the same, it showed a low state of affairs at Tahakopa, and apparently all that the young men there had to do for amusement was to get together and drink. The case would he dismissed. There were two similar charges against Hugh McCann and William Anderson, bushmen, which Sergeant Dunlop said it was hardly necessary to proceed with as the evidence was similar The Magistrate said the police might care to appeal, and he would adjourn the cases till September 24. -Evening Star, 11/9/1925.
BY THE WAY...
Prohibition is not taken seriously down Tahakopa way. Judging by the evidence in a recent case in which, by the way, the defendant was triumphantly acquitted, “keg parties” take the place of the tamer amusements of the urban districts. The Tahakopeans seem mighty men of their mouths. One witness modestly undertook to make two gallons of beer “look foolish” in the course of an evening. In the unfortunate event of another war this gentleman and his friends might enlist as tanks. Meanwhile
Down in the forest something stirred, Which was not the note of a secret bird.
It was not the sound of the bushman’s axe, Assaulting the timber with mighty whacks.
It was not the wind in the pine tree branch, Nor the roar of a far-off avalanche.
Not these, not these, my child.
It had the soothing, pleasant sound, Of a spring that bubbles from underground.
It murmured a lilting, haunting tune, Like a song in a dream that passed too soon,
Rising and sinking — now high, now low, And it changed from lento to allegro
As the fun grew fast, and the keg grew light, And the weaker brothers got rather tight.
’Twas beer, ’twas beer, my child. -Evening Star, 19/9/1925.
MORE ABOUT TAHAKOPA.
LICENSING CASES CONCLUDED.
CHARGES DISMISSED.
From the minds of certain representatives of Tahakopa's young manhood a troublous weight has been lifted. Hanging over their heads for some weeks has been a charge of keeping liquor for sale within the no-license district of Clutha, but yesterday, in the Magistrate’s Court at Owaka, the cases were disposed of to the satisfaction of the two defendants, William Anderson and Hugh McCann, against whom the cases were dismissed.
The Magistrate (Mr H J Dixon), in giving his decision, said that he was satisfied that the defendants had been able to afford the liquor they had bought, and he did not think they had been keeping it for sale.
The evidence showed that the liquor had been bought for consumption at “parties," where it was put away in substantial quantities and with a certain amount of rapidity.
Senior-sergeant Quartermain prosecuted, and the two defendants were represented by Mr T. O’Shea.
The periods mentioned in the charges were between June 1 and August 31 in each case, and the charge against Anderson was dealt with first. The Senior-sergeant said that the defendant was a married man with two children, and was employed at a sawmill at Tahakopa. During June he had had sent in from Dunedin two cases of whisky and five gallons of ale, worth, roughly, £14 10s or thereabouts. Liquor to the value of £64 2s had been purchased by the defendant during the past eight months. When the defendant was served with the summons he admitted that he had received the liquor, some of which was for himself, but the greater part was for a number of others who had taken part in a tarpaulin muster.
Stanley Whitty (clerk in the employ of Speight and Co.), Thomas Kelly (salesman for Lane and Co.), and Arthur David Healy (clerk for R. Powley and Co.) submitted documentary evidence of the amount of liquor supplied by their respective firms to the defendant.
Constable Bonisch (Owaka) told how, in company with Sergeant Dunlop, of Dunedin, he interviewed the defendant at Tahakopa and showed him a list of liquor which Anderson admitted having received. Anderson further stated that some of the liquor was for his own use and some of it was the result of a “tarpaulin muster.”
Sergeant Dunlop (Dunedin) corroborated Constable Bonisch’s evidence. The list showed a total value of £64 2s. During the month of June two cases of whisky and a “five’’ were sent.
Mr O’Shea said that the case for the defence was in the main the same as that presented a fortnight ago. He would endeavour to show that the defendant was in a position to purchase this liquor. William Anderson, the defendant, said that he had been in Tahakopa nearly three years and had held his present position with Hogg and Co. for two years, at 18s a day. and an extra day a fortnight. His full wage for a fortnight was £11 14s. During the last 12 months he had lost between a fortnight and three weeks at Christmas and 10 days or a fortnight at Easter.
Mr O’Shea: So that, roughly, your total wages for the year would be £260, an average of £5 a week?
Witness: I think so.
Witness added that he lived at Hogg and Co.’s house at the mill free of rent, and he also had free fuel. He was a married man with two children. The grocer’s bill was usually £4 or £5. and the butcher’s was about £1 18s l0d (this being an account produced along with one or two others). Taking into consideration the biggest possible outgoing in his wages he would still have close on £3 a week or £2 10s at the very least. He was quite able to pay for any liquor he got. The whisky he purchased was for his own consumption, and the five gallon keg of beer was the result of a bet with McCann, witness being the loser. This keg was tapped in the engine room. Witness did a little betting, and one of the cases of whisky was the result of a £5 bet which returned £26 10s. The tarpaulin musters occurred at Christmas and at Easter. The Senior-sergeant: What was the procedure in this tarpaulin muster business? Witness: The money was collected and handed to me, and the liquor came in my name.
Witness added that he collected first.
The Senior-sergeant: Did you know you were infringing the law?
Witness: No, but I know now. Cross-examined, witness said that the race which paid him the dividend was at Wingatui, in the June meeting. He did not bet much on horses.
But on this occasion you sprang a fiver? — Yes.
The Bench: Don’t you lose any time through wet weather? — Sometimes.
Do you lose any time through work at the mill being slack? — Only in the Christmas and Easter holidays.
How is it you have not had any liquor since June? — I didn’t know how to go about it. I was sort of frightened.
The Magistrate: But the police hadn't taken any steps in June or July. How is it that you stopped on June 30, when you had been getting it for nearly 12 months?
Witness: I was getting a bit hard up and had to take a pull.
Asked how much whisky he drank a day, witness said that a quarter of a bottle was his average.
His Worship: When you get a case of whisky does all Tahakopa know about it?
Witness: Oh, no, but I have friends.
Who are they? Witness named “Mr Murphy, Mr Cook, and the two Mr Hayes.”
Where do they drink it. At your house? — Yes.
Questioned why he suddenly shifted over from beer to whisky, witness said that it was chiefly for his health. “I have to take a certain amount to stand up to my work.” he added.
Charles Cook (sawmill employee) said that he had had several drinks with Anderson at the latter’s own place. It was whisky that he drank. Witness did not contribute in any way to the cost. He got some himself occasionally and treated his friends. Witness remembered Anderson getting a keg of beer as the result of a bet, and this was left at the mills, where the employees could help themselves.
Daniel Murphy (a farmer) admitted having had “many a one” with the defendant in his own place and sometimes at the mill. Witness sometimes got whisky and shouted for Anderson. He never contributed towards the cost of whisky and never took part in any tarpaulin muster. The last time he had some from Anderson was a week ago. Witness thought that he was equal to half a bottle a day. “Though I have never tried myself out,” he added apologetically.
The Magistrate: They must hold championship meetings at Tahakopa. I think.
William Hayes, bushman at Tahakopa, another of Anderson's occasional guests, said that in June he helped in the demolition of a five gallon keg in Hogg and Co’s, shed. That was the last time he had had a drink with Anderson.
To the Senior-sergeant: He had never taken part in a tarpaulin muster.
To Mr O’Shea: He had never heard of them being held in Tahakopa.
The Magistrate said that in this case he could go back only throe months, beginning from June, during which time the defendant had had two cases of whisky, and five gallons of ale which seemed to be the result of a bet. In four weeks defendant had had eight bottles of whisky, and according to the evidence he was able to afford them. Further, from his appearance, he was evidently a man who could get through “a good bit” of liquor. He did not think that the defendant had been keeping liquor for sale, and the case would accordingly be dismissed.
The charge against Hugh McCann was then heard. Mr O’Shea said that he would admit the purchase of £55 2s worth of liquor from November 11 to August 5.
Senior-sergeant Quartermain, in evidence, said that he interviewed the defendant in Dunedin and asked him if all the liquor was for himself. McCann replied that some of it was for a tarpaulin muster, whereat witness remarked: “You must have been a lamb.’’ Defendant answered; “I was a lamb.”
Mr O'Shea: He's a bit of a hard case, isn’t he?
Witness: Well, he's not a crook.
Mr O’Shea: On one or two occasions you have met him has not a little banter been exchanged?
Witness: Oh, yes.
He’s a fellow who speaks out? Yes.
Evidence was given by the defendant who said that during the period he purchased the liquor his wages were £l a day, though now he was getting 19s. He averaged £5 a week during the last few months, and his board amounted to 25s a week. On an average, he had about £3 a week to spare.
Mr O’Shea: What do you do with this liquor when you do get it?
Witness: I don't throw it away.
Witness added that he treated his friends with the liquor he bought.
Mr O’Shea wanted to know if the defendant's answer to the Senior-sergeant about his being a lamb was not a bit of sarcasm on his part.
Witness said that it was.
‘‘Do you think you’re taken for a lamb at Tahakopa?” counsel asked. “Perhaps I am — by some people." was the reply.
Witness said that they usually had tarpaulin musters at sports meetings, and the last one was at a “send-off’ to a local resident, about July last. “Everybody slings in two or three shillings,” he said. Witness had never tried himself out, but he thought he could “do” a gallon a day. He would not like to say what be could do at one of his little parties.
Thomas George Farquharson. sawmill employee, said that he had had many a drink with McCann at “a bit of an evening,” at McCann’s place. Witness put on an 18 gallon keg in return and entertained the same little circle.
To the Senior-sergeant: He had never taken part in a tarpaulin muster, though he had heard of such things.
Evidence similar to that of the previous witness was given by Jack Smith. This concluded the hearing and the Magistrate said that his remarks on the first case applied also to this one. He considered that the liquor brought in for these keg parties was not for sale. The information would be dismissed. -Otago Daily Times, 25/9/1925.
No comments:
Post a Comment