CORRESPONDENCE LIVE STOCK EMBARGO

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 178, 29 June 1937, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

LIVE STOCK EMBARGO

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Every attempt at repression of disease is but a temporary measure ; a costly effort which invariably ends in failure. It is possible to dam the stream but, unless provision is made for the diversion of the power so stored, it will eventually burst its banks with devastating results. Your correspondent, Mr J. C. llyman, under tho above beading, draws a most frightful picture as to the “ever-present danger of introducing this vile scourge (foot and mouth disease) to the Dominion. He has absolutely nothing to be afraid of. I write from what I know, but, as many people prefer fiction to fact, illy testimony may not carry much weight with the average reader. I was present at, and took a deep interest in, the outbreak in Yorkshire in 1869 or 1870. It was certainly new to that generation and no one seemed to know of any recognised method of treatment. Binseed oil and dry linseed meal appeared to be the best and only remedy, as cattle, in the worst cases, would lick up these remedies to the exclusion of everything else. Out of a herd of 20 only five or six were affected, the oldest milk-cows painfully, while the younger stock seemed immune. All symptoms passed 14 days later, and three months later all appeared in better condition than before the outbreak, probably owing to an improved diet and extra care given in tending. The experience of those farmers, who were able to judge the effects of the disease impartially, forced them to the conclusion a year later that the disease did far more good than harm, and, while they did not hanker for its return visit, they took such steps as were considered best to render their stock immune; to improve the strains and generally, by weeding out defectives, build up sound, healthy herds and a better business. Let me assure Mr Ryman that it is impossible to overcome the world by hiding away from it. I think there is no embargo on measles and whooping-cough. They are too elusive. Besides, it is better to have these complaints while you are young. The nations of the world are sjiending over a million a day in maintaining embargoes, and are likely to continue to do so indefinitely owing to the number whose bread and butter is dependent thereon. They call it “defence and overlook the fact that defence implies and invites attack. What about the embargo on infantile paralysis ? It only postpones the attack and its ravages can only be mitigated by fortifying its potential victims’ health by judicious dieting—plenty of milk and whole-meal bread or its equivalent, and a minimum of imported and denatured foods, which favours robust health and consequent immunity from disease. Infantile paralysis rarely attacks adults for the simple reason that the majority have either had it or that they are too healthy and disease-proof. If a child in moderate health be attacked, there is a sudden riso of temperature, quite unaccountably, and some 48 hours later normal conditions are resumed. Like most contagious diseases, it is not recurrent, although its attack may be so slight as to be almost unnoticed. The pity is that parents make themselves ill with fright where danger does not exist. One may be brim-full with health and consequently immune from every form of disease. Fear, man’s greatest enemy,-is a thief and a robber, so beware! My time and your space are limited, but I must remind your correspondent that “Nature abhors a vacuum,” therefore it is ridiculous to repress a disease and permit a worse form of disease to take its place. If trouble be invited it is useless to try and dodge it. It is written: “Bo not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” The difficulty is that we are so busy fighting evil, real or imaginary, we have no time to do much good.—l am. etc., C. H. MASON. Palmerston North, June 28, 1937.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of Juno 2G there appears a letter over the nanie of J C. Hyman, in which he advocates the total embargo against the importation of live stock from countries subject to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, and calls up that hoary bogy of what would happen if the disease ever reached this country. Isn t it a fact that there is a far greater danger of the virus reaching New Zealand by som6 other vehicle than live stock i Under the present conditions of importation the possible carrier animal might reach here undetected, but with the proposed grouping of. shipments under the personal supervision of a qualified veterinary surgeon it would be impossible for the carrier not to reveal itself long before reaching this country. England now has an efficient quarantine station through which all stock must pass before being exported. For many years prior to its establishment New Zealand had an open door to stock from England, but without the disease . reaching these shores. The present regulations result mainly in increased costs without much real protection. Mr Llovd Hammond is suggesting a means or lessening costs whereby a given amount of money could land superior stock in New Zealand, and at the same time provide a much greater protection, not only against the introduction of foot and mouth disease, but other undesirables as well. We are importing stock and English breeders are anxious to export to us so why not work for somethin**- to replace the present raffertv rules. It won’t help us to emulate" the ostrich with its head in the sanO. I am, etc.. ; Reid’s Line, Feilding, - T une 28, 1937.

MR MAZENGARB'S ADDRESS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I hasten to assure “T.C.” that I have no wish to ignore faccitraev. Every word written was my sincere belief. It is surely wrong of “T.C.” to assume that I went to Mr Mazengarb’s meeting with the intention of being dissatisfied with both the speaker and bis address. What justification lias “T.C.” to assume this? Like others, I went to his meeting to hear from the speaker just what we could expect of Socialism. This was to be the subject matter of his speech and, I repeat, many came away disappointed. I am glad to learn that the new Nationalist Rarty is not a rehash of the old Reform Party. For its own sake, and for the good of this Dominion', this is worth knowing. This fact notwithstanding it is true, is it not, that members of the old party will seek election under the new banner. IVlmt’s in a name j A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'” Names of political parties are not nearly as important as policies, and I am afraid if the old group gained control we should merely experience a repetition of the old policy (rejected at the last poll). Actually the Nationalist policy is not known, but one can assume that, irrespective of name, the Nationalists’ policy is the same since the same gentlemen aspire to office. Admittedly with a change of name could conic a change of policy, but why not tell us what that policy j s v No" one appears to know. Thus, if I reason that the old group seek to delude the electors by a change of

name, then I surely must be excused? The public would be interested to know exactly the platform of the Nationalists;" thus I address the following questions to its leaders; Mill it advocate the repeal of the 40-hour week? Will it legislate for; the 20 per cent, cut in wages and salaries? Will it convert the State Bank to its former position as a Reserve Bank? Will it sell the Post Office, railways and broadcasting service? Will it close the State Fire and the State Insurance Departments? Will it legislate for camps for married men? "Will it reintroduce the 4B scheme (labour for farms)? These questions are asked in all seriousness, because, if the same personnel seek election under the banner of Nationalists, I for one shall expect a repetition of their former legislation. A change of name does not bring about a change of heart; thus, irrespective of name, what assurance have the electors of better things? The last Parliament legislated in a manner not approved by the electors ; thus if the same men are returned it appears to me one must expect a further dose of the same nasty medicine. How can a change of name alone bring better results? In conclusion, I am sorry “T.C.” has met such a poor type of Socialist. My experience has"been very different, but maybe my twenty-five years of travel have widened my experience? It has that tendency: —I am, etc.,