CONDENSED CORRESPONDENCE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1241, 25 September 1911, Page 6

CONDENSED CORRESPONDENCE.

Owing to the very ■ lr.Tgo nnniber of letters on hand, we have found it necussary, in tlio following cases, to condenso our correspondents' contributions, leaving tho principal points as written. "Eeform" writes:—Could you allow me space for the following information or interest to the feminine portion of your readers regarding tho womanhood suffrage measure? Sir John Fiudlay, speaking at a social after his return from Home, asked the ladies to remember and vote for'those who gave them that privilege. Tho credit of tho Bill, I believe, should be given to Sir John Hall, member for Hororata at that time, 1593, and a public meeting held in the Exchange Hall in 'support of it was addressed, by Sir John Hall, supported by Sir Robert Stout. At the following election. Sir Robert Stoutwas placed by the women's vote at the head of the poll in Wellington with Mr. Duthie next, both sirong opponents of tho then Liberal Government. When the Bill went before tho House it was passed by a small majority, of whom, unfortunately— perhaps fortunately for theso who voted against it—there is no word. Amongst those who voted for the Bill on the Council when it became law by the small majority of two were: J. D. Ormond, Robert Pharazyn, Mr. Barnicoat, Mr. Hart, Mr. Downie Stewart, Chas. Johnston, J. B. Whyte, E. C J. Stevens, i3d W. H. Montgomery, all "old-fashioned , Tories." Tho measure ivas opposed by Messrs: Feldwick and Itigg, and Hon. W. C. Walktr, tho two former nominees of the late Right Hon. R.J. Spddon, the latter afterwards a Minister in Seddon's Cabinet. Mr. S-eddon, in the course of a speech made shortly afterwards, said: "He neither voted for or against the measure; he just walked out of the lobby." In the. face of all this, can it be called a Liberal measure? I hope the women of New Zealand will remember who gave them the power they lisve, and will vote for thoco who advocated clean government.

Mr. F- W. .Bnrko writes from Masterton:— Somo time prior to the' last election I called attention to the rapid increase in tho public indebtedness. Sir .Joseph Ward replied to that criticism instancing tho alleged valuable assets that tho Government held- in lieu of it, and declaring fhat a comparison of public debts between New Zealand and oldor countries was unfair. To tho first objection it is only necessary to say that until the sinking funds havo liquidated both ink-rest and principal that these assets cannot be held as absolute Government property. Sir Joseph Ward recently divided the public debt into interest and non-interest bearing assets. This is mere juggling. The Prime Minister is well av:aro that tho debt is a con. solidated burden upon the people, and that connected with it is a mass of local and private debts that the one million persons in New Zealand must earn and provide tho interest upon. Tho true test of the debt is the per capita obligation Taking the decennial years since IS9I tho increases are.:— Debt . Debt. per head. Population. ;E ,g s ,] 1691 G26.G5S 37,313,308 50 H 10 mm 772,719 48,557,751 G2 1G 10 1011 1,007,811 79,537,35S 79 i i As ro Sir Joseph Ward's cla.Mii that it is unfair lo comparo that public debt of New ZeaJand with older settled countries

I need only say that o comparison tween New Zealand and the Commonwealth is no more flattering (o tho "wizard of finance."

Tho political outlook, writes "Waipomuini," is pregnant with possibilities. One of our Ministers lias "gone hack" on his colleagues. He, like the camel, smells the approaching wmd-up oi tho priwiu \\ iuu pantomime. Labour unionists and labouring out-back settlers alike find (he excessive borrowing of Sir Joseph Ward has raised duties. Some farm machinery is free; wagons and wagon wheels, inter alia, have a heavy duty. Farmers have to pay out much more than labourers in proportion to receipts. I am a full-blown outback "ccckie," and 1 have not had a cent to call my own for two years. All I get is what I make, working tor others. I am a starter; I have had a tough struggle for existence. All us starters have had to almost starve. If we could sell out we would go to Australia. I read a letter in a contemporary hearted "The Labour .Party ami its Ideals." I agree with them there is something wron" We must get a fresh Government in for a T .i J c<mltl I ! ot S et a freehold farm X would quit farming and start as a labourer. We want to have a Government to keep down the cost of food. Wo all have to live, and wo want a spirit oi nv> and let live. Jlassey may be a (,'O.ml man; we all know he is a sticker. He has the good of farmers, labourers, miners, mechanics, and all who toil for their jood at heart. All classes here who live by toil should unite to eliminate this Government. All thoss who can are leaving the country. Socialism is iu tho air. It has conquered the ranks of labour and permeated the schools of learning, and now it marches on the citadel oi individualism. In tho day that the competitive system is thrown away our doom is sealed. Without incentive'ambition will (IJO away; without rivalry exertion loses its point; without competition improvement becomes needless and impossible; without straggle tho very faculties atropny, purpose tlajs, nerve fails, and muscles are enfeebled with disuse. The agencies that have built us up will be destroyed. Inrough some dread experienco as tills wo may have to pass, for Nature will nmke her lessons understood, at whatever cost is necessary to those who sot her laws at deliance.

A Member, commenting on tho furniture trade dispute, says:—"l would liko. through the medium of your columns to congratulate Mr. Jleriarty on the able manner iD which ho has conducted the above dispute. There is no doubt that he lias done tho union a great service, and I would suggest that he should no\v do them another and greater by handing in his resignation, that is, if ho considers the interests of tho union before his job as secretary, and tho £3 Gs. a week, lhqt he should carry tho case through so well was only to bo expected, seeing that it was through evidence that he himself gave before the Labour Bills Committee that tho Conciliation Council was sot up. There aro one or two statements made by Mr. Moriarty to which I tako exception. Tho first' is that the union did not want outsiders interfering in their case. The next statement is that the rea.snn the union did not appoint an agent. wa.s because (hero was no', anyone that understood the case. Does Mr. Moriarty mean to say that none of the members that voted the casj be taken to Court understood the position, and voted for a thing they did not understand? Mr. Moriarty talks about the union believing in conciliation. That must have keen before he came to Wellington, because (here has been very litiio conciliation or good feeling shown since he has been here. I hope the union will send men to the next conference who understand the meaning of conciliation, and who believe in hard facts and commoa sense before bounce and blustor," /

[At tho ensuing; general election." writes "Common Soriso," "the question of Prohibition comes first. May I ask the unthinking and led to look at tho commercial ind payers' side of tho position? J\o law in tho Empiro can compel anyone to drink. The annual receipts /or revenue purims&s through th* trado are <£79i),G3.1 ]f_ Dominion Prohibition were carried, this sum disappears—a similar amount must be forthcoming. Who must contribute? Everyone throughout New Zealand, from' the infant to the aged.' .

"I ra surprised," writes a correspondent, "to find that anyone in a ChrisHan and civilised country could bo found t!v> N bring before Parliament a Bill containing such a disgusting proposal as the ■marriage of uncte anil niece Is Sir William Steward moving this Bill for the benefit of 'only one person in the Dominion'?" . On the same subject a second 'correspondent, "Porirnn," say?:—"The impertinence of Sir W. J. Steward's ■.Marriage Act, rejected in the House last night, is not realised. As the Act is at present, a man may marry his deceased wife's sister, and yet cannot marry his deceased wife's sister's- child. The position is, of course, absurd, and one can hardly imagine a sano , lot of men opposing What is manifestly an error or omission in tho' present Act."

Mr. W. H. Hawkins writes in characteristic style in reply to our footnote to his letter dealing with what ho choso to deecriba as "the anonymous cur." Ho says the footnote is unworthy of the paper and that in any case ho generally gets all the publicity that ho wants without writing letters to tho press. Also that his condemnation is directed at , "the cur" who ■'slanders, belittles, misrepresents, etc.," his fellow-citizens. It is altogether a most elegant epistle as can bo judged from the concluding paragraphs which we publish in full:—"The following slab from your unworthy footnote ought to be sot to music, i'ou say 'the correspondence columns of the newspaper may not always be on acenrato rellex of public opinion, but they would bo infinitely less so if they wero closed to all who, owing to their occupation or for other good and valid reasons, could not afford to sign their names for publication.' This is indeed a choice slab. Sir, j. am dealing only with tho dirty, cowardly rotter who uses tho newspaper column to anonymously attack a fellow-man whom he has not the courago to attack out in. the open, and I don't caro what occupation a man may be following, there can be no good and valid reasons to justify him acting the part of a cur. By all means, let us havo public men criticised. They deserve it; but they do not deserve to be stabbed and assassinated by the anonymous cur from under cover. Bah! I loathe tho anonymous cur, I always have loathed him, and always will loathe him. Again, sir, I ask, do you respect him? I leave the creature to the public." A correspondent signing himself "Who Rang the Bell," writes replying to Mr. Hawkins's first letter, and stating incidentally that it is tho sort of "wild shriek" people are accustomed to from Mr. Hawkins. Tho subject, however, is not worth pursuing.

"C.S." writes ro compulsory military training, in which a writer describes thoso who refuse to rejjislcr for military service as cowards. This may not lie t'ho case, altogether. A man in the American Civil war was shot because he refused to fight. Evidently it -was not because ho was frightened of being killed that lie refused (for ho was killed) but, possibly, because lie did not , wish to kill anyone himself. It might, bo argued with some, show of reason, that thoso who clamour most for an army are most frightened, just as a person wlib rocs through the dangerous part of a largo city alone, and unarmed might be said to bo more courageous than tlw ono -.who carried a and is accompanied by some other person.

"Hibernian," in reply to "R," says: "Certainly, a Christian martyr cannot possibly be a. coward. I can sec'no analogy here, to those shirking enrolment for servico in 'defence' of their own country. In tho case, of a captain going down with his ship, the wreck of the Fifeshire tells of 'murderous' Africans who came towards tho ship and had to bo driven off with .rifles. Would it not clearly be a matter for every man to use arms if the attackers persisted? Would ho bo a man that would refuse? No man necillessly desires to tako life, but the question at issue is not thai - . It is defence of tho hemes of our sisters, mothers, daughters the infants, and the aged. Who shrinks' from that duty I ra.ll cowards. 'B.' pleads for a man who wants not to take any life, nor does ho want others to do so for him. Again let it. bo understood it has been arranged that a cadet may enter a hospital corps, or perhaps othor non-com-batant billet."