LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 310, 24 September 1921, Page 12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

MIRAMAR HOUSES Sir, —I have to thank you. for tho space granted mo in your issue of the 17th, more particularly as you were good enough to invito the Department to answer tho questions I raised. I regret, however, that you did not enlighten us with your solution of tho financial problem that I presented. Might I reiterate it? Do you suggest that 30s. a week rent opens up a blissful vista of 86} years’ contentment to a man with a large family? Do you honestly think the fact that “private landlords are asking and' obtaining more” will justify the Government in renaming “Broadway” .and calling it "Easy Street”? Can you tell us "how it is done”—prove to us that the Railway Department in hanging on to the old rulo that a week’s rent should never exceed a day’s pay is hopelessly old-fashioned? The only danger, of course, is that your very lucid explanation of how to overcome the problem will encourage landlords one and all to pop up the rents all round another Bs. Id. per week. As to the Department's reply—surely "misunderstanding" is a very mild term and “quiet examination of the facts” a screaming anti-climax. Let me, if space permits, take the explanation seriatim find recapitulate the facts that still remain unanswered. Here then, is my case, plainly set out: — I am not and never was a tenant. I never suggested, nor did the Department suggest, that I should rent a house. The Department issued a prospectus: Workers’ homes not to exceed .£lOOO. Parliament had passed an Act: issued a mandate. Homes must be provided, payable by instalments not to exceed 21s. Hd. Attached to that prospectus was a form — questions to Ire answered, requirements to be stated. I filled it in, before a Justice oi the Peace. I sincerely and solemnly declared that I desired to purchase a house and did not want to rent one. 1 tore tho perforated form from the pros.pectus—that didn’t make the prospectus less binding on the Department. I applied to purchase a house, and in March I was told in writing that “the Housing Board had approved of my application.” So I paid the deposit, became an occrtpier—a purchaser, not a tenant. In writing, before I entered into possession I was assured that the weekly instalments would be 21s. Hd., pending the signing of the “final" agreement. Note the word “final.” I want to make this assertion—that at no time previous to March had I spoken to any member of tho Housing Board or the Labour Department, that not once during March, April, May, June, or July, did I discuss costs, or agreements, or tenancy with any Government official. But . in July the Department fired a bombshell and gave me an agreement to sign, agreeing to rent a house at Sts., with some painful clauses about stumping up £5O within 'seven days— altogether a weird and wonderful document which the Department are evidently now thoroughly ashamed of. I didn’t want to rent a house, as I was already a- purchaser, so tho X5O joke was relegated to oblivion. . ~ . , This, thou, is the crux of the whole matter. The Department have not cancelled their letter of March 18, they did not inform me that tho cost was likely to exceed >.£1000; they never toldi me about asking Parliament to extend any limits. I challenge the Housing Board to produce any proof to tho contrary. There isn’t ono official in the service who explained, or warned, or cleaily pointed out by word of mouth or in writing anything at all during tlrn first six months of my occupancy. My instalments were to be 21s. lid., pending the final agreement. Tho 21s. lid. is based on .£lOOO, and as the cost was not to exceed .£looo—l was told nothing to tho contrary—was I not justified in assuming that tho instalments could not exceed °ls Hd. The contract was made in good faith. The Department does commit a breach of that faith it it attempts at this late date to evade the fact that legally my instalments must not and cannot exceed 21s. lid per week. Mirtit I oho add that I feel sure tho Department will not resort to any devious method to determine the contract. , , , „ After all. the Department seems to be quite unable to fix the cost of the houses now in dispute—mine among them, let, how did they arrive at tho cost to the “good wicket” occupiers. In my thirst for calm examination of the facts, might L If No. 18 is the last of a contract of six—five of which were sold at £lOOO, or 21s. Ild. a week? What are they asking for No. 18? and why 30s.' per week ? 2. If No. 19 is the first of a contract of five, and is sold for £1000? M hat price 20 21, 22, and 23? ... 3 If No. 21 is sold for .£lOOO, did it cost exactly that? Or what other factors were taken into consideration when fixing tho price? . . n ■t Are the "good wicket occupiers all parents with large families? I feel sure tho public would like to have the fullest information. In conclusion I understand that the present occupiers would willingly have organise! boating excursions round the settlement yesterday for the hundreds of other eager applicants. They could have as- >« CRITICISM AND ABUSE Sir,—The butter-fat economist who signs’ himself “Taranaki,” in his latest effort has delivered himself of as choice a selection of cowshed epithets and abuse as I have seen in a newspaper for quite a loim time. "Taranaki” has been routed, horse, foot, and artillery, and ho seeks to cover his retreat by raising a smoke-screen in the shape of a further outburst of violent declamation. Not ono ol his exploded statements does .ho attempt to defend; but ho ascribes to me statements which T have not made, and uses them f®r the purpose of throwing more mud. Hero are some of tho compliments he has hurled nt mo: “He implies that I am an agitator, a bloodsucker, a parasite, a strike-promoter, and that I have been guilty of 'a low, dirty action.’” It is indeed difficult to be patient or courteous when dealing with n man of “Taranaki’s" mentality; but. after all, ho cannot help himself, and is more to be pitied than blamed. I want to emphasise tho fact that my part in the controversy is duo to the utterly absurd contention that railwaymen’s wages and salaries should at onco bo reduced to the pre-war nominal standard, and that tho General Manager’s salary should bo lowered to .£l5OO a year. I gave authoritative reasons proving to tho hilt how utterly unjust and inequitable the proposal was, and “Taranaki” has not made the slightest attempt to combat my statements. His other quee.r ramblings all round ihe railway compass dont really matter, as they are mostly ridiculous and wholly inaccurate. In regard to tho present General Manager and tho Superannuation Fund, “Taranaki" simply doos not know what ho is harping on alxmt, and. as I have already told him, ho should patronise another information bureau. Tn reference to the Railways Superannuation Fund, however, I wish to point out that it is one of tho wisest and most statesmanlike measures that has been placed on New Zealand’s Statute "Book, as it undoubtedly ensured nearly twenty years of industrial peace so far ns railwaymen are concerned, and it will continue to play its notable part in that direction for all time. The tu quoquo style of argument is not always permissible, but I think it is in this instance, and permit me to say that it is mon of tho stamp of “Taranaki” who arc responsible for every industrial outbreak that, has taken place in this country. They ennnot discriminate between cause and effect; they seem I to know nothing about history or politi-'

cal and industrial evolution; the only reason or logic they seem to have acquired is that of tho 'big stick, and their one mission in lifts seems to be to flay tho workers whenever an opportunity presents itself. In conclusion, I wish to say that 1 have not on a single occasion sneered nt butter-fat, ns “Taranaki” says I have done, but I admit having thrown ridicule at butter-fat economists like “Taranaki,” who nerruinly deserve nothing bettor. I am too fond of butter-fat to be so foolisn as to sneer at it; my family also have a pronounced fondness foi butter-fat; but with butter at 2s. sd. per lb. and 'bread at Is. 2d. per 41b. loaf, it is enough to bring tears to a man’s eyes when he watches slices of bread and butter disappearing in the faces of his large , and hungry family. Despite my unmistakable liking for butter-fat, however, I do not allow it to cloud my vision. Ido not think and speak and 'write in terms of butter-fat, and I do not unload slabs of butter-fat economics. If "Taranaki” had his way the workers would have to substitute margarine for butter-fat, and then he and his like would have to consume tho whole of their own butter-fat supplies, or else the butter-fat would perish, as all wealth quickly does, unless it is consumed. That is something for “Taranaki” to ponder over. Lot us hear from him when he has sorted it out.—l am, etc., M.J.F. N.Z. RUGBY UNION MANAGEMENT Sir,—Now that the Springboks are gone and we are reverted to normal, it is high time that some light be throwr on some of the questionable methods of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Rugby is recognised as our national game, and consequently concerns the public of New Zealand. Some time ago we were informed that the names of players in the Test matches would not be published in the newspapers, and it will 'lie remembered tMit considerable controversy took place concerning the matter. Wo all wondered why the names shouldn’t be published. It now transpires that some arrangement was mado with the contractor for the programmes. The fact that the firm, of one of the officials of tho union was engaged in the printing of the programmes is another matter that has naturally caused comment. We must admit that the names of players appeared in tho newspaperc' tho night before the match, but that was only after public protest. Now, Sir, is it the proper thing for an arnaieur sportsman and a high official’ of the union to accept a contract associated in any way with the sports body in which he holds office? If ho could not afford to refuse the contract, he could have retired from office. Tho question involved is one of principle, and there should surely be some ruling on tho point. Another matter that calls for' much thought is the selection. Why should tho Selection Committee bo allowed to justify their selection by also being allowed to judge as to who was the best man in our team on tho day’s play ? They tried to hoodwink the public by giving tho medal to a man who everybody who cither played in or saw the match knows didn’t earn it. Now a. word about finance. Can it be explained how tho returns in the Spring-bok-Wellington match wore so much less than at Dunedin? In Wellington tho paying attendance was ever so much more than in Dunedin, although the cash receipts are alleged to bo correspondingly Idss. Who is responsible for this state of affairs? The question has been previously raised in The Dominion, but as yet no explanation is forthcoming. As Rugby is our national game . and the N.Z.R.F.U. don’t want to explain these matters, then it. is high time a public meeting he convened to wash tho matter up. We mustn’t allow our national game to drift into slack control. Tho public schools and universities of New Zealand are as much, if not more, interested in the game as anyone, and among their various staffs 1 am sure would Im found a number of gentlemen who are amateurs pbove all else, who would willingly give some of their time to endeavour to prevent tho dear old game from drifting on the rocks. The R.Z.R.U. can presumably give no explanation, and so for the sake of the game can’t somebody who is capable convene a public meeting?—l am, etc., OLD TIMER. ECONOMY INJUBLIC SERVICE Sir,—l was very pleased indeed to learn from your report of this 'week’s meeting of the Masterton Chamber of Commence that the members of that body are in general agreement with tho promoters of the movement for greater economy and efficiency in the Public Service. It is only by unity in a campaign of this kind, sinking mere personal differences and political prejudices, that we shall achieve success by satisfying those in authority that tho country districts and the towns are of one, mind in their dosiro to promote the best interests of the Dominion. I notice, however, that Mr. W. G. Lamb, in seconding the motion approving of the resolution adopted by the Wfell'ington Chamber, gave expression to the belief that 'business men were prone to criticise public Departments they knew nothing about, and would be "much better off” if they "kept quiet and toed the mark.” Probably in tho process of necessary condensation your reporter omitted portions of Mr. Lamb’s remarks which would have modified the unfortunate inferences they convey in their printed form. But your report will have much wider publicity than did the spoken words, and perhaps I may be permitted to oiler a word or two by way of comment. I’t is quite true that hitherto (he business men of the Dominion, speaking generally, have abstained’ from taking .an active part in controversial politics. This may ho counted to them as n virtue or the reverse, according to the point of view of the individual critic, and there is no need to discuss this aspect of the question just now. But it is not tsir to assume from the fact that business men. as a rule, do not meddle with politics that they are ignorant of what is going on in the public life of the Dominion. The very reverse is the case. Business men in the interests of their customers and their clients, which, of course, are the interests of themselves, are bound to keep a. very close eye upon the Departments .and upon Parliament if they wish to remain business men and to progress and prosper with tho rest of the community.- Their incentive to vigilance in this respect may not be patriotism alone as the term is employed in its restricted sense but their patriotism is as sincere and as comprehensive as that of other sections of workers' in country and town. As for Mr. Lamb's suggestion that business men should keep quiet and tee the mark. I confess I do not quite grasp its meaning. Business meiu-are not often charged with being over-noisy in public life.” On the contrary, they are frequently reproached for their silence in this arena, and they are growling now. T take it. because they feel it too ho their bounden duty to give what assistance ITTey can in overcoming the grave difficulties that 'beset the country. “Toeing tho. mark” in popular phraseology is standing up boldly Io any trouble that overtakes tho individual, the community, or tho State. This, doubtless, is tho meaning Mr. Lamb intended to give it in its application to business men. TTis exhortation is admirable, but so far as I have observed it is a little superfluous. Business men are not only bearing their own troubles, but they also are sharing tho troubles of many other people, as cheerfully as may be. in circumstance? which are trying the courage and stamina, of us all. Tho times are not pleasant for any of us, but we can make tho 'host of them by pulling together with stout, hearts and in full confidence of the better times that are coming.—l am, etc... ONE OF THEM.