CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1750, 8 November 1917, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor).

Sir. — If I thought “Aunt Sally” was in earnest about special military concessions to childless married couples since the war, I would say “Aunt Sally” was offering a gratuitous insult to married men with families. In my opinion, sir, those who should receive greater concessions from the Government are the married men with families. But there are some people who get married and think it too vulgar or common to increase the birth-rate. After making charitable allowances for the functional unfit, the deliberate non-producers are not worth a moment’s consideration, for they defeat the Divine and common law of nature, and are cumberers of the ground. The falling birthrate will, if we are not careful, threaten the downfall of the nation. This country is already cursed with too many human, female dolls. God help us if we have to depend for future’ generations from the class “Aunt Sally” seeks to appeal for. — Yours etc., FAMILY MAN, (To the Editor). Sir. —Replying to “Aunt Sally’s” most pleading epistle of to-night’s “Herald.” “Aunt Sally” seems to be worrying where the future generation is coming from, and reckons the war-married couples should stand a chance to px’ovide the future generation if possible. Newly-married has certainly missed the ’bus, as you say, Mr Editor. I think myself that the present younger generation will be ample to supply the future generation. It really does seem a pity that Mr and Mrs Newly-wed should be imposed on because there have been so few war marriages, haven’t there ? Anyhow, I won’t suggest that Mr Newly-wed is hiding under the petticoat, but I think that if we family men wait a while we can go when we are called upon. I suggest that Mr Newly-wed have a chat with Sir James Allen, and perhaps he will be able to sympathise with him and give them both a chance in this delicate affair. —I am, etc., FOUR IN HAND. Foxton, November Gth, 1917. (To the Editor). Sir. —May I have a few words with “Aunt Sally?” Is she speaking for herself, or for her poor hubby? I cannot think “Aunt Sally” would be so cruel as to try to rob the little ones of their father. Surely she must be an old maid with no motherly feeling. I pity all who have to go, especially the fathers who love their children. As for the young married man, I am sure he cannot see through “Aunt Sally’s” glasses, as any right-minded jxerson must know that the man with a family must be the last to go. Perhaps “Aunt Sally” was married before the war and regrets now that she has not done her duty. If her hubby is left behind, would the birth-rate increase 1 ? Thanking you, Mr Editor, —I am, ete.,

UNCLE SIMON,