Citizens Say-

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 103, 22 July 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say-

(To the Editor.)

T.B. SHELTERS

| Sir, — It makes British blood boil to read of the proposals to shift from the Domain the shelters for the T.B. patients. By all means make gardens round the shelters for these invalids to look at, and by all means let us do everything we can to make their lives there as happy as possible. Talk about flowers! Were these men not like beautiful flowers before the Great War? Look at them now! I am sure no man could live happily if they turned these poor ex-soldiers from the only homes that are provided for them. LEST WE FORGET. THAT RUINOUS LOAN Sir — I was very pleased indeed to read in THE SUN of the 21st inst. "Taxpayer’s” condemnation re the above, and I sincerely hope hundreds will take the same view. Let it be understood the majority of citizens can see much farther ahead than the City Council, and could probably teach them a few lessons. ANOTHER RATEPAYER. LOAN PROPOSALS Sir, — The loan of such a monstrous amount of money as proposed by the City Council should be turned down flat by all sensible citizens and ratepayers. Surely they have had good experience of the promises and failings and extravagances of the council and tramway authorities in the past few years. The council is not troubling itself about relief of unemployment. It did not consider the unemployment it was causing when putting off the buses, so whatever happens, it is only getting what it deserves. Because a community bus is on the road to lighten a family’s expenses, it is hounded off. The council appears to be up against any other company making the fares easier for the working class. The tramways manager says that the trams belong to the people. If so, why do they fix fares «o. high that people are unable to make use of them? For the Auckland City Council to have .been made the licensing authority is the greatest mistake ever made. Competitive buses are very necessary and they are a great boon to the working classes and others too. RATEPAYER. A DEFENCE OF THE TRAMCAR Sir, — “Taxpayer’s” extravagant assertions re tramway losses should not go unchallenged. A statement of fact and figures, which can be verified, concerning these tramway losses which your correspondent has stated are universal would perhaps be opportune. These are a few of last year’s balance sheets for your correspondent’s enlightenment: Liverpool tramways showed a profit of £50,000; Belfast £31,474; Leeds, £51,987; Edinburgh £11,585; Birmingham, .£40,000; and Manchester, £110,608. In the US 4 several attempts have, been made to supplant trams by motor-buses, but this has not been successful where the population exceeds 50,000; Philadelphia’s balance sheet for 1925 is rather interesting, as it shows a profit on tramway operations of £108,399 and a loss on motor-buses of £45,778. The report of the commission of German engineers sent to London and New York last year to study traffic conditions is also worthy of note. Tfie commission was unanimous in its report that in neither city had the motorbus demonstrated its ability to handle what is called mass transportation in Berlin. It was found 300 street-cars with a capacity of 70 would do the work of 475 buses seating 54 passen-

gers apiece. The crux of the position in Auckland is that some of the public have been enjoying motor transport at less than operating cost and now that an attempt has been made to place I these services on a profitable basis at an economic rate of fare, a section of the public evidently does not appreciate the fact that motor transport is costly. Those who ride must ‘‘pay the piper.” The Christchurch Tramway Board which claims its bus operating costs are lower than in other centres state that the average cost of operating a bus (including depreciation) is Is 7d a mile—a halfpenny more than the cost of a tram with twice the seating capacity. In conclusion, although “Taxpayer’s” condemnation of our tramways management may be warranted, it is not good policy to rush into print and make generalisations which cannot be verified. RATEPAYER. PROPERTY AND VEGETABLES Sir, Large numbers of people stop me and ask if I can give them any hope of getting a cheap section, as they are all anxious to have gardens. Numbers are talking about leaving Auckland to go to Argentine and other places if they cannot get land here at a reasonable price to rent or purchase. One woman the other day said she felt disgusted at some one writing in one of the daily papers saying he did not know what we should all do for vegetables if all foreigners had to be interned in case of war. And she added she* was tired of having to buy stale vegetables at shops and that her husband could not get a plot of ground to grow vegetables, and have them fresh—as vegetables must be to be of any use as food. W. R. A BLIND STREET Sir, In the last five months three motorcar accidents have occurred in Servia Street, Newton, and there was also a narrow escape from accident with a horse and sulky a fortnight ago. Surely the council has known long enough of the necessity of a strong barricade across the road, which is a “blind” street, ending with a precipice. I trust something will be done before loss of life occurs. I thought at 3.30 a.m. on Wednesday an earthquake had struck my house. STITCH IN TIME. ELIMINATING TARIFFS Sir, — While I regard universal free trade as the ideal objective, and while 1 agree with “C.H.X.” that the term protection is misleading and objectionable practical considerations force me to demand protection against those who protect themselves against us. The essential consideration which *'C H X ” seems to overlook is that protection hurts the selling, as well as the buylng, nation. To cite an example from Economic History of England”- In the latter part of the 17 th century the import of cattle was also restricted in the interest of the English landowner, for fat cattle from beyond the seas were forbidden, and a blow thus struck at an increasingly prosperous Irish export." The nation which hits us by tariff restrictions, as England thus Ml we must hit back m like manner in self-defence. FaU- > ire J eallse this was the weak feature m Gladstone’s otherwise superior fiscal f ° llc y- The “fair-traders” in 1885 saw this defect, which Britain has recently endeavoured to remedy by raising tariffs on such things as motor-cars. Britain gave a lead in the right direcuon, which other nations have refused to follow, but they must yet come to it. Increased tariffs usually raise the general cost of living. The price of bread in New Zealand is almost certain to X'ise with the increased duties pro-

posed on wheat and flour. Thus a favoured few will gain by a general lowering of the standard of living. I s that fair? Mr. Coates tries to justify it on the ground of the need of independence. A poor plea that? A better ground is the Australian tariffs against our produce and the fact that we already are buying more from Australia than Australia from us. This vicious economic circle is like a a 1 ** 1 vortex threatening to engulf p e nations. Only by reducing and eliminating tariff hatefulness can we have peace and real protection. _ J. G. HUGHES-

KARANGAHAPE Auckland’s main business thoroughfare is known, very properly, by tfj dignified name of Queen Street. TB next in importance is unfortunately dubbed Karangahape Road. I fee* “v*there should be a change made-—*? sooner the better. May I suggest m substitution of Duke Street in com memoration of the Royal visit, possibility is, however, that this nam is already given dignity to some 3 ‘ back alley. This, however, I fee* h is a matter for adjustment-^ NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS F.M.—Your letter has already i peared in another paper.