Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 8, 7 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-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editoi 1 reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

TRUTH? Sir,—lnstead of answering my questions you adopt the usual politicians trick of dodging the issue and abusing your opponent. You also recommend self analysis as a means of arriving at the nature of truth. This is a subjectivist attitude and comes close, to the outlook known as solopsism which denies the existence of any objective truth and results in as many truths as there are individuals. You seem to have forgotten your original remarks which certainly postulated objectivity in this matter. But you have not answered the questions relating to relative and absolute truth. Failing a satisfactory reply we shall be forced to the conclusion that you are unable to answer, in which case you might care to follow your own precept, stick to the truth and admit you have entered into a subject of which you know nothing. Yours etc., P. JESSUP. (We welcome the arrival of our self-confessed ‘opposition’, of whose existence, we were up till now, blissfully unaware. We regret however the allegation of any use of abuse on our part, considering, that this term could richly apply to writers who gratuitously allege that Editors are in collusion with other correspondents whose views fail to coincide with their own pet theories. We have no political aspirations as suggested and regret the swift intolerant attack made by our correspondent whose effort to classify ‘truth’ is only weighted by empty verbosity. Truth is surely the one thing which cannot be classified or varied, irrespective of whether it is preceeded by the words relative, absolute, positive, relative, subjective, subversive or any other qualification. These are just so many figurative side issues calculated to bewilder and mislead'. We have had enough of propaganda, half-truths and versatile insinuations in our 'international dealings to sicken the average person for a life-time, to worry about the application of Einstein’s relativity theory dragged away from its scientific context to batten on to a local controversy. We prefer, the open and defined roadway of truth which is in the .conscience of every one of us, to the academic analysis which leads exactly nowhere. As we said before we are sorry for those who fail to recognise it. Ed.)

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Sir, —Your correspondent “Onlooker” would try to explain things by logical phrases which have no standing. He says: “Democratisation” of the means of production and distrbiution (why not add “Exchange”) is an illusion, for it results not in Democracy, Jiut in Dictatorship. Centralised control is dictatorship. whether by the State or private finance, or both combined. Therefore need I repeat myself. Democracy is the form of Government in which the supreme power is vested in the epople, perhaps he meant “Demarcation.” When Government administers our political economy, then* who controls its policy (not the- people) therefore who controls the economic policy of the Government? Present and current events go to. show that our financial economy is being controlled by the dead hand of Foreign Finance, centralised from Wall Street and the Bank of England (refer back to “Central* ised Control” Beacon Press, July 12, 46). Since the Bank Act 1923, the British Government resigned its sovereignty, giving over the full control of its (finance) treasury to the bank of England, “a private concern.” This goes to prove that Governments of today are only agents and the answer to the dictates of outside finance! In 1935, the Bank of England was openly proNazi per a statement in the “Financial Times” of May 15, of that year. The following appeared in the “London Evening Standard” July 3, 1940: “The Bank of England is now taking over Whitehall. That is the true meaning of appointments to the Treasury in the last few days. The Bank of England is probably more powerful now than it has ever been.” Mr Louis T. Fadden, ex-rpresident of the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, speaking in the U.S.A. Congress on December 15, 1931, said in

referring to the slump: “It was not accidental, it was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of dispair so that they could emerge “rulers of us all.” They are still working to that end. Sir seeing that friend “Onlooker” has come out as ■ a champion of orthodox finance under the guise of democracy; and having contributed to quite a large number of newspapers throughout the country it is time lie dropped his nom de plume and came out in the open. ' Yours etc., W. BRADSHAW. ' CARPENTERS AND BUILDERS Sir,—The case of a firm of builders having their charge of 6/6 per hour reduced to 4/6 by a Magistrate at the local court on Tuesday last calls for a little comment. The Magistrate and Counsel for both sides, evidently missed the main point in the case. If any of these gentlemen were to drive their cars into a garage for repairs, - they would not “buck” at paying 7/6 to 10/- per hour for repairs, despite the fact‘that the mechanics> doing the job get, I presume 3/3 per hour. The same thing applies if they require the services of a master plumber, or electrician or master painter. However, in Court last week, when a firm of master builders claimed 6/6 per hour, a learned Magistrate and Counsel, failed to distinguish the ' difference between a carpenter and a builder. Appar- __ ently wrapped up in the usual legal procedure, they failed to grasp the main point, viz. that any firm of builders in New Zealand can charge 6/6 per hour for every man working on the job, whether they do the woi’k themselves or employ men, according to the rules laid down by the Master Builders Association of New Zealand.

Now, Sir, the Magistrate instead of looking into these matters', failing to distinguish between say" an apprentice, a carpenter on Union pay, or a firm Of master builders, proceeds to quote the law, which says the charge must be reasonable. Would he expect a master plumber, electrician, a painter or a garage proprietor to use his own truck, cart his gear to Rotoma to do a job at the same pay as a journeyman plumber, electrician etc ? Would any person, say the decision given by the Magistrate was reasonable, that a firm of builders, who spend hours of their time, getting out estimates, drawing plans, preparing specifications, inspecting proposed work etc. etc. are to be classed in the same category as the journeyman carpenter on award pay. If that is law, it is not justice. If the Magistrate concerned was put on the same rate of pay as a law clerk, it would be quite a different matter. I would advise the builders concerned, to refer the matter to the Builders Association, 'and if not too late, to lodge an appeal against such, an uncalled for decision. Yours etc., STAN EVANS, Builder, Valley Road, Whakatane.

(In fairness to all parties we must point out that in the case concerned the plaintiff provided the transport for both carpenters and their gear, to and from Lake Rotoma on all occasions. Also as far as we are aware there were no plans, specifications, or inspections involved in the case in point. We are not taking sides in any way but desire that the facts should be known as our correspondent is going largely on surmise' in this respect. Ed.) v >,

Sir, —I notice in .your ‘Beacon’ (of August 2nd, a statement reported to have been made (in Court) on behalf of a client by Mr, B. S. Barry re .the carpenters award, in which he is reported as saying, “With the carpenters award stipulating only 3/3 per hour.” If the report is not correct, a statement to that effect should be made, if it is correct I would like to have his method of computing 3/3 per hour from the following, which are extracts from the award in question, and based on ordinary time of 8 hours per day, 40 hour week.

Award rates per hour, 3/0 2 plus 5 per cent, cost of living, plus lid per hour tool allowance, plus 5/cost of living, plus . annual holiday pay, plus 8 or 9 days statutory holidays which must be paid for. ' From, information I have,, builders in Auckland pay from 3/6 to 4/6 per hour, plus all holiday 'pay. I hope this will remove any misunderstanding re rates of pay under the award, and disclose who made the mistake. Yours etc., HARRY CARR. (The word ‘approximately’ wasused in court to describe the carpenters award. The sum of 3/3 was agreed to by both parties. F«d.)