Citizens Say-

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 58, 31 May 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say -

To the Editor,

HOMEWORK

Sir, — The thanks of all parents and children are due to you for drawing attention to this crying evil. Too long have our young children and adolescent boys and girls been subjected to the tyranny imposed on them by a pernicious system, which robs them of leisure, congenial intercourse with their homefolk, and, as you say', allows no time for the development of individual talent or hobbies. Then there is the great question of health. One does not require expert knowledge to realise the danger of compelling immature minds to concentrate on study when the body is fatiqued. My experience as a teacher was that home-work, involving written work and lasting for 30 or 40 minutes, produced no benefit. The time spent by the teacher in setting and correcting the work could be better utilised in instruction. It is high time that parents and children revolted against this imposition; there must be many others besides myself who object to seing their children’s time taken up and their health endangered by a system which relieves the teachers at the expense of the weak and helpless. It will be well if all parents will voice their grievance now that your welltimed article has made the way clear. ZEALANDIA. HAVE ANIMALS SOULS? Sir, — In view of the approach of the special week devoted to the claims of animals, it might be well to quote a recent statement of Lady Eden. At the centenary gatherings of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, she refers to the idea of the after-existence of animals as follows. “We must abandon the antiquated notion that every animal is soul-less and created only for our use Many laughed at the idea that birds and beasts may be possessed of souls; but there are many men of science who think so. We must get away from the idea that the entire animal creation is our own property which we can use in any way we choose.” It is easy to see that were animals more generally considered as having “rights,” the treatment meted out would be different. It is conceivable that there will dawn an age wherein our present-day treatment of the “lower creation” will be viewed with abhorrence. COUNTRY TEACHER. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS Sir, — Dr. Buxton does not deny my statement that, while in New Zealand the Roman Catholic authorities insist on “Catholic schools for Catholic children” as a fundamental principle, in certain other countries the Vatican accepts the system of religious instruction in State schools by State-paid teachers. Dr. Buxton does not deny this difference of policy. He merely gives the reasons which make it necessary. Does not this indicate that “Catholic schools for Catholic children” is not really a fundamental and unalterable principle, but rather a question of time, and place, and circumstances? Dr. Buxton asks me to give an “unequivocal” reply to the following most equivocal question:—“What could be more unjust than for a Government to establish a. purely secular system, and thus making the Catholics face what to them was the necessity for providing for religious education at the cost above stated (£240,000 per annum with capital cost for buildings about £400,000. in addition to cost of sites), and then after all this expenditure was irrevocably committed to grant, at State cost, religious instruction suitable for Protestants, and reply to a demand for State aid for Catholics that they had separated themselves from the State system.” I really must decline to reply to a question put in the above form. It is more like a trap than a

fair question. It iH a leading question, which would not be permitted in a court of law. In fact it is a misleading question. Its unfairness i» revealed in the four opening words. It implies, suggests and assumes the answer desired by Dr. Buxton and his friends. Its recital of the facts is disputable. It ignores the extremely important fact that the Roman Catholic opposition to the present State education system began before tlie Bible-in-Schools League was born and would continue unabated if the leaguedied to-morrow. Mr. Caughley did not really intend his statement to be regarded as a definite qLiestion requiring a definite answer. It was merely a device of rhetorical controversy. Dr. Buxton has replied so courteously to my questions that I hope he will not regard my refusal to answer his question as in any way discourteous to himself. NORMAN BURTON. Sir,— In his first letter on this subject, “H.R.H.” made a purely secular plea for Bible-in-Schools on the grounds that it is used in law courts, and that a knowledge of it was necessary for a proper understanding of literature. It now appears that he would not place the whole Bible in the hands of children, but only such limited extracts as referred “to love of the neighbour.” How these extracts could achieve his former desire of literary explanation, is a matter for “H.R.H.” to elucidate. In my reply I stated that the above pleas were disingenuous in that the Bible is primarily a religious book, and a Bible handbook would be used to the furtherance of religious ends in schools. “H.R.H.” now admits that he desires the introduction for such ends and thus invalidates his former arguments, while supporting my contention. Taking it for granted that he discussed the only measure at present on the horizon, Mr. Isitt’s Religious Exercises Bill, and not some undefined scheme, the product of his own mind, I pointed out the worthlessness from a moral and literary standpoint of unplained exercises, but he again leaves my criticism standing by first plumping for actual instruction in religion and finally deciding in favour of the Bill under discussion rather than the continuance of the secular system. It is not for me to unravel your correspondent’s inconsistencies. A.E.C. OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM Sir, — Rare words these, the psychological significance in political and economic language, for the one, is prosperity, and the other, depression. These words loomed in the political history of New Zealand at various times when Conservatism or Liberalism held sway. In fact Conservatism denotes pessimism, while Liberalism denotes optimism. From 1840 to 1900 pessimism and Conservatism spread its mantle as a black pall over this wonderful country. The same old cry, “Down with the pessimist” was heard throughout New Zealand in those by-gone days till the insurgent rumble burst the bounds of human endurance in the later eighties From 1890 to 1912, with sound administration and legislation, and the country having moved from profound instabilitv to prosperity, these words disappeared fi om the lips of New Zealanders. People lived in the atmosphere of optimism felt the security and contentment of prosperity, and that a reasonably fair division of wealth and income was being distributed among all the classes of the community. Comfort and security for long years has its evil consequences sometimes. Truly it had in New Zealand. Poor men had become secure, both in their freehold urban households and their rural farmsteads. They forgot the hand of Liberalism that gave them this happy environment In 1912, working men and farmers alike savagely bit the hand that made them. Within one month of the first Conservative Parliament, selfishness started red war

on the foundation principles of philanthropic Liberalism, repealing land legislation which made Xew Zealand prosperous, smashing fundamental economic and legislative principles which had spelt progress and ever-increasing production, creating a new party of big landowners and inflating land values through their own valuation department, and driving finance from the country to the town as well as population, as their lack'of land policy failed to open up land for settlement or burst up broad domains. A. HALL-SKELTON*. WRESTLING Sir,— It seems that with your opportune assistance nd fair-mindedness, it may still be possible to instil a larger amount of enthusiasm into that body which is known by the name of The New Zealand Wrestling Association Incorporated. Your correspondent “Wake Up” knows what he is talking’ about, but I could not say the same for “Old Wrestler.” Sunni has endeavoured on many occasions to meet C. M. Brown for any purse required, or for no purse at all, or for proceeds to go to charity. This can be confirmed by any official of the N.Z.W.A. In conclusion I may state that Sunni has been “starving” for matches k ,r many months past, but his applications have been consistently ignored by the association which has scarcely given this man a fair deal. It is unfortunate that this correspondence did not commence a little earlier, so that we could have had an opportunity of seeing a real wrestling match before Sunnis departure for Australia. However, bis many friends wish hirn better luck over there where his wrestling will be appreciated—except by those whom he meets. ONE WHO KNOWS. “JARGON” Sir, — • Right and Reciprocity” puts jargon of his own into my mouth and calls u my “dictum”; which shows his own ineptitude. “Touched by these horrors oi war and by the reciprocities liable to follow,” wrote Carlyle. ciprocities, in the same sense, follow*® the recent firing of Chinese on Brittf® ships. While we failed to reciprocal* the evil grew, but when we reciprocate® it stopped. To exact an eye for & eye and a tooth for a tooth is *7* ciprocity and elemental justice, and tn best way to save both eyes and tecui* The League of Nations is monomy, or world law'. It says: nations should forthwith remove th«** (tariff) barriers, which unduly trade.” High tariffs are strangulating China and other nations. The ness (bargain hunting) of the mas- ' necessitates the meanness (low paying of the classes. The empl Ujc cannot pay high wages while his go ‘ fetch low prices. He cannot pa> “living wage” to those who don t it, save at the expense of some o worker or himself, which is not rice When unions and courts force the v of production above an economic nt production ceases and unempjoj results. Red propaganda to ll * goose that lays the golden egg. j China is learning to her soiroj*’- . n should say the capital was the three cases cited by vour pondent. The nationality of p jj OPf and capital is sometimes In 0* , yet that does not warrant tne . posterous assertion that P ers mv capital have, or has. no nationally RECIPROCITY Ik R®***