Citizens Say —

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 17, 11 April 1927, Page 6

Citizens Say

To the Editor.

ART UNIONS Sir,— Permit me to thank you f or g. splendid leader on the art u nuisance in your issue o£ yesterday n is refreshing to read such fine manly talk against an insidious dangerous evil. 311,1 I ant certain that in this v ou h.. people baCklne ° f aU risht '-'hmw£ and a your y pa r per b pr;spel de Stren «h. ALEXANDER A. MURRAY The Manse, Herne Bay. POLITICIANS AND READING Sir, — Will you kindly allow those members of the House of Representatives whom Dr. Guy Scholefield described as omnivorous readers to be reminded that, “to mind the inside of a book is to entertain one’s self with the forced product of another man’s brain.” If they are impressed with this bright sally, they my leave off reading altogether, to the great im. provement of their originality, then every householder will read Hansard with reverent care. So few now study Parliamentary debates, because they appear to be speeches of people with some disability which may not be incompatible with great intellectual power. JOHN BAILEY. CHEMISTS AND PRESCRIPTIONS Sir,— It might be advisable to call the attention of the Pharmacy Board to the custom practised by many chemist* of retaining any prescriptions handed to them to make up, except when expressly requested to return it with the medicine. The practice is one that frequently causes annoyance and expense. Here is a typical example: A friend recently brought her invalid husband to Auckland for medical consultation. The prescription given him by the specialist she had made up by an Auckland chemist. It was not until she had reached her home that my friend discovered that the chemist had retained the prescription. This necessitated her leaving a dangerously sick man, and travelling back to Auckland, before a further supply of the medicine could be obtained. When she told the chemist of the expense and fatigue his action had caused, hia only reply was: “If you had written I would have pos:ed the medicine/* From liis point of view that might be satisfactory, but everyone has not the pen of a ready writer, and the purchase of a postal-order would have entailed a journey to a distant post office. M.S.& ON WITH THE DANCE

Sir, — I was much struck with the absolute justice of a statement made by hi* Grace Archbishop Averill under the above heading in your issue of Saturday. Of a country dance, he says: *‘lt is a most solemn affair. There ia nothing of a spirit of levity about it" A few years ago I lived in a country town which was largely a Methodist community. When the pastor of this flock wasn’t busily engaged hunting for sin, he spent time; and energy denouncing it. Dancing he abhorred, so the social gatherings were limited to “tea meetings.” These funct: ons began early with prodigious quantities of food —rich cakes and pastry, buns and scones, washed down with heavily sweetened tea and coffee. After tea games were indulged in. The game* were “Blind Man’s Buff,” “Reuben and Rachel,” “Kiss in the Ring,” etc. in these games young men and women laughed and shouted noisily, chased each other round the hall —grabbed one another indiscriminately, faces flushed with heavy indulgence in rich sugary food. Their good pastor looked on bland and smiling—saw nothing wrong with what was really a disorderly rabble. And yet this man had on the previous Sunday volleyed and thundered against the action of his Anglican neighbours in promoting a danc* for the benefit of a rather thin and straggling parish. Now, Sir in your mind’s eye construct the difference in behaviour at these two functions and behaviour we are told is three-fourths of life. The orderly dance ir time to music, under the vigilant eye of an M.C., was exactly as the Primate has described it. Once I had the curiosity to ask a rabid prohibitionist if he had ever tasted beer. He replied that he had not. “Ah, no wonder you’re a prohibitionist,” I remarked. Have critics of dancing ever tried to dance, say, a “simple” fox trot. 1 use the word “simple” advisedly—tor really it takes months of practice to perform this pretty rythmic walk wi anything like ease or grace. I*ll wager if the good doctor once does start they won’t be able to stop him. ANGLICAN. THE ARCHBISHOP AND DANCING

Archbishop Averill’s pronouncemen on dancing in Sturday’s SUN can me like a ray of sunshine in an othe - wise rather drab and depressing Auc - land. To say I was surprised ana pleased to read his approval of danci » but poorly describes my feelings, use his own words, “Far better to na dancing under proper supervision to drive it into undesirable Q ual jYYf hits the nail fairly on the nea*Another gentleman whose name not necessary to mention here . a t ()T days ago remarked on the necessii > more optimism in business, ]0 ? quote his words “How can we Well, first, by ourselves becoming £ fident as to the future, and, s®**®*, imparting that confidence to with whom we come in contact- thin gs two letters convince me tnai are going to improve. They s meß remarks by men who are schoi • who have made a study of ils nature, its weaknesses strength and virtues. y.® fter a living in an age of reactio nation. ! disastrous war. "W ithout r - in dancing, amusements, sftom, - by each case intelligently W responsible bodies, life wo . nde m» worth living. People that these things would do well to * that we are not living in theJ" ca un, era, when all was peaceful recomparatively speaking. - . - n th« creation -should be P r ° v T^ lir i, » country districts, too, if “T ces . Thi» be made available in scuch is one of the secrets of tlement in the country dtsm must be put into practice coming from cities can be - »t remain in small township , j night are very dark, and I wet and muddy. These remarW ff , 1 no doubt appear to be AyuW A rd” 1 tangent, but, to come back jt „,1 bishop Averill’s pronounces*®. be endorsed by a large I Auckland's citizens as aei ) broad-minded, modern and, of sympathetic understanding. “A SUNSHINE LOU*. L