Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 6, 2 August 1946, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-piume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

GUN CLUB AFFAIRS Sir, —The recent criticism in your paper ostensibly coming from a financial member of the Whakatane Rod and Gun Club is to my way of thinking one of the worst displays of bad form I have ever encountered. In the first place your correspondent admits that his assumptions are only based upon rumours. In order to learn the real truth he is not prepared to go to the secretary, the executive or any officer of the club for a little explanation. No, he prefers to send a series of semislanderous letters to the press hinting that there is ‘dirty work going on.’ The only dirty work I can see appears to be of his own making. As a member of the Club and a keen sportsman I appeal to my fellow member to introduce a little more manliness into this controversy. The books and records of the club are open at all times for bona fide members to inspect and examine; our committee members are all workers with the interests of the club at heart. I am in full accord with the stand now taken up by the executive that until your correspondent signs his name, he should be ignored. I am quoting facts, Sir, which X feel are to be preferred to letters based entirely upon rumours. If the writer of these considers he is help ing the club, by such loose publicity, I can assure him that he is not, and further as I have ascertained that on no occasion has he ever made an application to see the books or correspondence, I can only surmise that he has a certain fear of coming into the open and honestly putting forward his enquiries. Yours etc., H. R. JACKSON, Another Financial Club Member.

WHAT IS TRUTH?

The inference drawn from your remarks is that though all of us have the truth and know it when we see it, the good sticking to it, there is a growing number of wicked ones who will have none of it.

Now physicists—Einstien in particular—tell us that the position of the observer is an integral factor in the character of the thing seen. With this in mind would you kindly show us how to distinguish between truth and error, between relative and absolute truth (if there are such), and between the relatively absolute and absolutely relative (if these exist)? With minds thus enlightened the deplored state of affairs might soon show an improvement. It would be vain to look to your assistant (?) “Onlooker” for help in this matter since he has obviously seized the occasion for the purpose of venting his anti-Soviet hate and is not interested in the question of such. Yours etc., P. JESSUP. (We would suggest quite earnestly to our correspondent, that in view of his apparent state of pitiful bewilderment, he adopts the process of a little self-analysis in its simplest form. Having found his true self, ‘truth’ in other things will become transparently apparent. The shot-in-the-dark regarding our alleged collaboration with another correspondent of a differing viewpoint, is a typical symptom of his present state of mind. Ed.)

THE LEWIS CASE Sir, —Recently we have had two cases of political interference in the administration of Justice—the Langford case and now the Lewis case. If these cases are to be correctly interpreted we must understand who must interest the laws in a Socialist state towards which we are moving. In 1931 the Socialist League was formed by Laski, Cripps, Cole,. Atlee and numerous Labour M.P’s. They laid down the rules to be followed in socialising. After providing that the Crown must be rendered impotent, Parliament reduced to the level of a Reichstag by an Empowering Act conferring dictatorial powers on Ministers, they then laid down “In the extended use of Ministerial Orders for giving effect to the general principles laid down by Parliament one great change must be effected. At the present time it is left to the Courts, to (decide .whether these orders are within the powers giybp bsc Parliament, w It. is always possible^or ; iem to :.be. challenged in the Courts. This power must be

taken from the Courts.” In other words in a Socialist state the Minis-, ters and not the Courts must interpret the law. This is the pattern of a Socialist state which is now becoming clear in New Zealand though we have not yet commenced “planning.” Common sense should tell us that once planning commences the Courts could not possibly be permitted to make decisions which conflicted with the .details of “the plan” which are known only to Ministers. We will then learn, what we have forgotten, namely, that the Courts are the only protection the people have against state tyranny and that in a Socialist state they become instruments of legalised tyranny for there can be no rule of law in a Socialist state. Yours etc., “ONLOOKER.**