Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 44, 14 May 1927, Page 10

Citizens Say —

To the Editor,

HONESTY

Sir,— I feel that I must protest strongly against the words in this extract from your issue of Thursday: "Lost, by poor woman, sum of £2O, is usually accepted with a disbelieving shrug by those who are sufficiently fortunate to discover such a large sum from street pavements, and 99 people would consider that possession is nine points of the law and leave it at that. The hundredth man turned up the other day.’’ This imputes a state of rank dishonesty on the part of the general public, and though the words were probably lightly written, and not meant to be taken too seriously, yet they are quite unjustifiable, and in addition they are pernicious, because they impute an accepted low standard of honour. As far as my own experience goes, they are quite contrary to fact. Even in the matter of lost property I have found my fellow-citizens anxious to restore to the true owner what has been found Unfortunately, there are exceptions, but not 99 per cent. E. M. WINS TONE.

WAIATARUA PARK

Sir, — Now that the City Council has received £I,OOO, under the late Mr. Abbott’s will for Waiatarua Park, is it not time it turned its attention to the same? AVaiatarua Park, with Lake St. John, could be made into the finest park south of the line, an ideal picnic ground and incidentally a source of revenue to the trams. We read about the shortage of sports grounds. At Waiatarua there are dozens of acres available. At the south-west end, off Abbott’s way, eight to 10 football grounds could be made quite suitable for play at very little expense. The need for playing areas will soon be more clamant in the rapidly-growing district beyond the tram terminus. The quantity of ti-tree logs and roots, ideal firewood, on the ground would, if collected and sold, almost pay for the cost of levelling off a few playing areas. The ground is firm and dry. Why not get busy, build a fence around, turn out the cows and open up Waiatarua Park to the public? BOIL THE BILLY.

“AIDA”

Sir,— I recently read a notice to the effect that a well-known Auckland conductor intends to produce this year one of the greatest of the operas of Giuseppe Verdi, and, incidentally, one of the most difficult of all operas—“ Aida.” I am awaiting the occasion with considerable interest.

“Aida” requires not only soloists quite highly dramatic in every role (and it will be by no means easy to find in New Zealand artists capable of handling such roles with ease and efficiency), but it is also of the utmost importance to have an orchestra and band with the Egyptian “trombe” to fulfil the instrumental requirements. I feel sure that the public will expect to see, on the next occasion, a considerable improvement upon the work shown in the local productions of “Faust” and “Cavalleria Rusticana.”

The Mephistopheles of the opera “Faust” is a w r ily individual, suave and cynical, whose scheme it is to make the unfortunate Marguerite fall in love with Faust, to his own diabolical satisfaction. The true import of the role was not properly realised in the. interpretation we were given, in which Mephistopheles was depicted as a blustering character, intensely dramatic and highly coloured, with little display of the callous cynicism that should mark the part. In the role of Alfio in “Cavalleria

Rusticana” the method was the reverse. As the interpretation of “Mephistopheles” was given in a florid manner, so “Alfio” was portrayed in the opposite extreme. He was shown as a singularly attractive fellow with a refined, pleasing voice, whereas his part, as a carrier of a very vulgar type, should have been sung as that of a rough and boisterous character.

Nevertheless these are shortcomings incidental to laudably-ambitious productions of the kind presented, and they can easily be remedied. I am looking forward to “Aida” and trust that it will be a success. At any rate, the fair and candid criticism that will no doubt duly appear in the columns of THE SUN will be of great interest, not only to the leading performers and the chorus, but to lovers of operatic music in general. “DIAVOLO.”

REMOVING A LANDMARK

Sir,— It was on Anzac Day they cut down the tree. Though a Beautifying and Town Planning Association is needed in Auckland, why waste time and money when the undermentioned state of affairs is permitted, if not encouraged, to exist? At tlie end of my street an old and very beautiful gum-tree was growing; quite a landmark as well as protection from gales in that quarter, and hiding repulsive mud-flats and an old tin shed. That tree was cut down on Anzac Day, of all days, ostensibly to give a view across the harbour from a newly-erected cottage. When it was pointed out that that tree was planted many years before this street -was made, and as the cottage stood on higher ground and overlooked the tree, I was smilingly informed there was at least two to two and a-half years’ firewood going to waste. So while most of the residents of the street were away at memorial services, our tree came down, so transforming one end of the street from an artistic corner into a resemblance of a slum. I tried for months to save this tree, but evidently nothing can cure such selfishness, unless drastic steps are taken to protect our landmarks now growing so scarce. TREE LOVER.

RECIPROCITY

Sir,— “To ' demand and to take are anomalies, the very negation of reciprocity, and all it connotes,” according to “Right and Reciprocity.” Any good English dictionary will show him his error. “Action and reaction,” to quote Chambers’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, and even, “a reprisal,” according to Murray’s English Dictionary, constitutes reciprocity. “To demand” of those who demand of us and “to take” from those who take from us is reciprocity. So if Australia raises her tariff against our butter w-e can raise our tariff against her wheat. If we sell more to England, she has a right to sell more to us. Nature has ordained that as men and nations sow they must reap, and we do but align ourselves with universal forces when we cooperate to have it so. To do otherwise is injustice to ourselves. I must ask your correspondent not to misquote and misrepresent me as he did in his last letter. He should know that we cannot speak of "foreign capital” and “Chinese capital,” as Mr. Scott does, if "capital has no nationality.” If Mr. S. W. Scott will himself consult the China Year Book, 1924, page 656, he may read: “Most of the workers of Shanghai come from the countryside. They are attracted to Shanghai, not because they are starving, but because they can increase their earnings and perhaps their savings, by working in factories and mills.” Their

labour “is voluntary and is social rather than economic in character. “Some refuse to leave the cities, wi their freedom, their night life and op portunities for culture and pleasure* * the dull life of the farm.” “Thus every step” in the uplift of worse * we are told, ‘“has been voluntary the part of the employer. The employ in China has been in advance °r mands by the employee.” This c pletely confutes Mr. Scott. RECIPROCITY IS RlGilJ^