Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 61, 3 June 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say —

To the Editor*

EPSOM SHELTERS Sir, — Your correspondent of May 31, dealing with the treating of T.B. in the Epsom shelters, is confusing the shelters with a sanatorium. Let “ExPatient” ponder a while, -and he will realise one is a place for chronic cases, the other for early cases, who may benefit by the treatment, strict discipline and lectures given in sanatoriums. The few cases at the shelters who are lucky enough to be up and on walks surely have enough horsesense and interest in themselves to abide by the rules without having the sister-in-charge or nurse always reminding them, as though they were loss of memory cases. WOMEN PATIENTS. THE TREATMENT OF T.B. Sir, Quite a lot has been said lately on T.B. and its treatment, although not enough as yet to make the Hospital Board and Health Department bestir themselves to do something more to help the minor cases to regain their lost health, or those too far advanced to spend their remaining days in pleasant dry surroundings. Certainly those who have had the fortune to discover in time that they are smitten with T.B. are treated to fresh air at the shelters at the bottom of a hill, and if minor cases are sent to Otaki Sanatorium, whence they are discharged too soon. But is fresh air, with cod-liver oil. sufficient? What they want is appetising food, which they are not getting at present. The food may be of the best quality, but surely the authorities have sufficient interest in the public for whom they cater to ascertain whether the food is properly and appetisingly cooked. With every convenience to hand, it would not be so very hard for anyone to cook food well. Trusting this poor epistle will find some corner in your paper, I beg to remain, dear Sir. H. M. BRUCE. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS Sir,— Dr. Buxton has not “satisfied me on many points” regarding variations in I’apal education policy, but his explanations have been interesting and instructive. As regards Mr. Caughley’s question. Dr. BuKton asserts that I admit that f may make such statements as I please, but that I will not submit myself to cross-examination. I admitted nothing of the sort. I stated that I would not answer the question because it is not a fair question. Its recital °? t “ e fa cts is disputable and onesided, and it implies, asserts and assumes the answer desired. Such questions are not allowed in a British court of law because they are manifestly unfair. I quoted the question in full in my last letter, and I am quite content to leave the matter to the judgment of those who are following this controversy.

Dr. Buxton tells us much about what the Bible-in-Schools League says “in effect.” These two words, “in effect,” have acquired a bad reputation. What a person is alleged to have said “in effect” generally turns out to be a controversial misrepresentation of what he really did say. The league has not said “in effect,” or in any other way, what Dr. Buxton attributes to it regarding the cost of the proposed

religious exercises. The only authoritative statement on this point that I can discover is that contained in Mr. Isitt’s pamphlet. It is as follows:

“As a matter of hard fact that cannot be gainsaid the exercises will involve neither State or taxpayer in one penny of additional cost. The whole question confines itself to how the one hour a week is to be used. The only cost will be to the parents of the price of the Bible manual and hymnal, which will probably be printed together and be very inexpensive. . . . The exercises simply absorb one hour a week out of the time devoted to instruction.” The passing of the Religious Exercises Bill would make no fundamental difference to the Roman Catholic attitude. As I have previously pointed out the Roman Catholic authorities were irreconcilabily opposed to the State school system before the Bible-in-schools League was born and their opposition would continue unabated if the league died to-morrow. Dr. Buxton’s quarrel about State aid is really with the Government and Parliament, and not with the league. NORMAN BUftTON. RESPECT ALL CREEDS Sir, Mr. Burton would be doing more for his cause if he were to take a more broad-minded view. I am sure there is nothing that would displease the Almighty more than to have people brought to him by force. God wants the w-illing one; one that is an example to follow. Different churches have different ideas, and every true Catholic is glad that his children can be taught the religion he wishes them to be taught. If Mp. Burton and his good people did as the Catholics do, and had their own schools, and their own methods of teaching, we would then see that, in their case, they were self-supporting and independent of others. Having the Bible in schools would reduce the parents’ duty to God. They are only too glad now to have the Lord’s Day a day of pleasure. Possibly they think it would be very nice to put the responsibility of their children upon the shoulders of public school teachers, and by adding a little Bible teaching they could then leave themselves free to go to the beaches and other places of pleasure on Sunday. A Christian should think first of God, and of pleasure last. Thanking you for your space in THE SUN, I suggest that we should all respect the different churches, but don’t let us bring politics into the question where the Great Redeemer of the world is concerned. T. C. JACOBSEX. ON DIVORCE Sir Your correspondent “Rocks Ahead” deserves, and I am sure has, the support of the clergy and all thoughtful Christians in his protest against the “orgy” of divorce now going on. “Eugenist,” to my thinking, leaves the question in an unsatisfactory position. There are clearly two standards of divorce among us; the law of the land and the law of God. They ought of course to approximate or even coalesce in a thoroughly healthy State, but in ours they do not. For the divorce laws of the land we have to depend on the wisdom of present-day legislators. And it is somewhat surprising in these days of enlightenment to find that legislators will protect the life and well-being of

the State by enactments against theft, murder, excess in drink and gambling, and even by by-laws to prevent disease and unnecessary mortality, but they see no danger to the nation in impurity and infidelity, and have lately widened the avenues for divorce. The fall of older nations and empires might have taught us that sexual vice is a most potent element in the decay of national virility. As regards the relation of the la* of Christ to the State law. it is often pleaded that the stricter law presses hardly on many individuals. But i has to be remembered that the law presses just as hardly on thousands of children, and is, as Ahead” points out, a danger to t State. „ F. C. LONGTHE TRAMWAYS In a recent issue of THE SUN * noticed that a letter on the <hth cu of securing employment with tramways had been referred to . Ford. I would like you to reaa u enclosed letter from Mr. ten over four years ago, months j fore the buses came on the r am a motor-driver, with e iS®t y a experience in Auckland, witno . g conviction entered against as not that I want the council s j * I have not been out of work x ._ n day in the eight years I ho *- in the city, but I wish to on difficult it is to secure a posiuoi the tramways. jj (Enclosure^ Application for Employment as bus Driver. receipt I have to acknowledge your letter of the 17th mst-, above. In reply, I have to placed that your application has —jces ** on record, and should required you will be notmefl(Sgd.) A. E.