PRESS COMMENTS

Hokitika Guardian, 2 May 1929, Page 8

PRESS COMMENT S

A WISE WILL. There is a distinct novelty in the clanso in the wilt of one Mr Samuel (Iluekstoin, in which he refuses to leave money directly to his childicn. |if every child were to ho treated generously according to its “moral worth the world would be a different place Hut if that ideal is incapable of fullilment, at least it is a welcome step in the right direction for rich parents to make the inheritance of the wealth they leave conditional upon some attempt to deserve it. Unearned wealth is too frequently, as Mr Gluckstem suggests, the impulse to extravagance; hut it is interesting to find the recognition o'f this sequel in such a quarter. Perhaps the fact that Mr Gluekstein secured his wealth by hard work and initiative is responsible tor the value he rightly places upon these qualities rather than upon their reward. The ‘Daily News.’ THE BEST WAY OF LIFE. If under the spoil of a wizard s tram}, the banquet of life could be spread out before us, and one Were asked to make his choice of the bos' things within reach, it might well bo • hat, next to what Saint Paul calls he “Fruits of the Spirit,” the followng would be among the blessings pro"erred. A modest house, with wile Hid weans, two or three tried friends a garden of roses, a book in a nook a sense of humour, a good digestin’ and means just sufficient to enable one to gratify his love of travels, music am ~-t. Rather a large order, it may he saio. And, yet, reasonably withii one’s means, if one remembers that, t( make oneself big, one must always b< unking himself small. In fine, ■ measure of self-sacrifice, a sense of values, along with a modicum of ten •icity, grit hard work, and pluck, and the best, to say nothing of the good things of life, is within the roach ol most of us. —Mr W. C. Loosmore in the “Daily Chronicle.”

LITERARY 013SEUETIES. “I have been reading a recent book” says \lr A. G. Gardiner, in the “Star” “which is in wide circulation, whose theme from the first page to the last is promiscuous lust recorded even to the bites which the foul satyrs inflict in their disports. It is frank blatant, uncompromising diabolism. Yet, so far as I have seen, it has been received by the professional critics with an unanimous ehorous of praise, without a suggestion that the subject is revoking, and thr

treatment —technically brilliant enough —an insult to the elementary decencies of conduct, lif the author’s conversation were on a par with his written work, he would he banned by the critics themselves as a lewd fellow. Ifni in tin* name of the ‘liberty of the Press lie is applauded for publishing, broadcast of the sort otf putrescence that ho would be ‘ cut ’ for uttering in private, .me ‘liberty of the Press’ is not a ifetish ; it is a privilege exercised within certain limits of social decorum.” . THE PREMIER'S SPEECH. How many people, sound in both ears, stay away from church because they iba.voi found 'their preacher, through no fault in the building, inaudible,, or audible only in part? His responsibility 1 here is very great. It is bis clear duty to bring into the pulpit as his indespeusable instalment ol expression a voice and speech trained, if they do not do it naturally, to give every word its due and full sound value for the normally-functioning ear. If bis voice or speech is structurally or organically incapable of this development, then why was be appointed to preach? Or, ir it is found not so developed, then why was it not trained? One of our finest public speakers lms minted out that public speaking —and if course, preaching is but a form of that—is the only art that is practised without truiniing. And so it comes shall they bear without a preacher?’ often resolves itself into “How shall they hear now they have got him ?” The Church has trained his choir bo v s, but him as a speaker it has not train“Manchestcr Guardian.”