OUR AUCKLAND LETTER.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 705, 7 February 1922, Page 5

OUR AUCKLAND LETTER.

PRINCESS MARY'S WEDDING GIFT. (From Our Own Correspondent). Auckland, February 3. The proposal to raise funds in Auckland by means of a shilling subscription, for the purchase of a weddingpresent for. Princess Mary, has not been received, so far as I have been able to discover, with much enthusiasm. Perhaps this attitude of the people of the largest city in the Dominion is due to hard times. In any case the suggestion would appear to have fallen rather flat up to the present. There has been some talk of a street collection, but nothing definite. I believe, has been decided upon. Meantime Mr Clement Wragge, the well-known meteorologist, has made what seems to me to be an excellent suggestion, “when,” says Mr Wragge, “one looks around on the world at this time, viewing the unrest and the millions of starving and unemployed people in England, India and Russia, one begins ,to think. If all the wedding presents our beloved Princess could only be converted into cash for the purpose of feeding and helping the multitude, how many homes would be brightened, how many people saved from utter destruction.” Mr Wragge further suggests that the proceeds arising from the sale of the presents might be placed in the hands of reliable trustees and used for the benefit of he unemployed and starving people jthose of the Empire first and after them the people of Central Europe and Russia. Whether the money arising from the sale of the presents would go very far towards relieving the needs of the, starving millions is pebhaps rather doubtful, but it would be far better employed in that way than in the purchase of a lot of costly things the happy pair would probably do very well without. “EXPECT ME AT 8.” A cattle dealer, so the story goes, entered an Auckland telegraph office the other day and handed in for transmission a “wire” of a rather unusual kind. The address was plainly written, but the message consisted merely of eight strokes., The puzzled clerk enquired whether the' strokes meant figures ? “Call ’em what you like, boss,” said the cattle dealer, “so long as they come out that way at the other end. My milssus, dy’e see, can neither read nor write, but she she can count alright, and when she gets that wire she’ll know I shall be home 8/t eight o’clock.” The message was duly despatched.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? A well-known Auckland business man whose opinion vras asked this week regarding the State lottery scheme*, thus expressed himself : “The principle of gambling is legalised in New Zealand in the totalisator. Then why the objection to a State lotteiy ?” Of course tihat is the point. If gambling is wrong in one form then it. must be wrong in all forms- As a matter of fact we are all gamblers. The man who buys goods, or land, or houses,, on collections of foreign postage stamps and holds on for a rise is a gambler; the man who buys stocks and shares is a gambler, for he stakes his money iin the hope of making a profit. But it is unnecessary to dwell on a matter wyth which everybody is conversant. A State lottery could have no worse moral effect than a State authorised gambling machine, and if we had it a huge sum of ■money would be kept in the country that is now sent out of it every year..

“NOT TWO UP.”

Apropos of the foregoing I may draw attention to a recent police court case in which a man was charged before Mr Poynton wijth having played “two up,” Counsel for the accused put up ' a good defence. “My client/’ he said, j “made the mistake of going into a ; field to gamble instead of going to the races.” The Magisi<ate pointed out that [the man had been prohibited ' from going on to a racecourse. “All the more excuse for him,” replied counsel, “he is not allowed to gamble on a racecourse but human nature comes to (the top and he gambles elsewhere —and is caught. Gambling is legalised by the Government, anyway. “No|t two up,” replied the Bench. “It will come to that—if Government {fcbinks it can get more taxation oy it/’ j declared counsel. This case serves to i emphasise the point I have endeavoured to make in the preceding paragraph. I hold no brief for ithe “two up” (players. But if “two up” is im- ' moral then the totalisator is immoral. They are both gambles, but the one is legal and the other is not. TRAMWAY MANNERS. Quite an animated correspondence I'as been troing* on of late in one of the Auckland dailies touching the onestion . Are the tram guar Is of Auckland more uncivil to passengers than are the tram guards to be found

elsewhere. Well, I have used the cars pretty freely in three of the four principal centres of the Dominion, ?.nd my experience is that tram conductor are pretty much the same everywhere. Treat them civily and (as a rule) they will return the compliment. Treat them discourteously and they will treat you in the same way. Occasionally, of course, you encounter a tram guard who has mistaken his vocation and ought- to be sacked. But such cases are rare.. And after all it must never be forgotten that tramway men have a good deal to put up withl Another matter that has been agitating the minds of the Auckland people of la|te is : Should male passengers give up their seats to ladies ? Dozens of letters have appeared in an Auckland paper regarding this point, and various opinions have been expressed. For my part I ithinlc it all depends upon the pasgeijs. If a lady, especially if he is old, enters a car to find all the seats occupied, and chiefly by men, I certainly think that one or other of those men ought do give her his seat.. That is with this exception : that if the lady boards jthe car during the evening rush hour, carrying parcels, and thus showing that she has been on a shopping expedition and has left her return home to the l)as,t moment, then it seems to me that she cannot reasonably expeqt a man who has been perhaps hard at work all day to vacate his seat in her favour. Shoppers have no right to travel by rush-hour •ars.