Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 170, 8 October 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say —

(To the Editor.)

MOUNT ROSKILL BREEZES

Sir, — It occurs to me, as a ratepayer of many years’ residence in the Mount Roskill Road Board district, that a great deal of the recent trouble at the board meetings may be attributed to the chairman. I was present at a meeting on Tuesday when there was a packed house, and Mr. Jones was applauded when he commented unfavourably on the finances of the district. Now, Sir, there were several remarks made by Mr. Jones which were absolutely uncalled for. He stated that it had hurt his dignity that the city merchants should have to be approached, cap in hand, with an offer of £SO off an account of £250. for the purchase of a tractor. Surely, as chairman of the board, Mr. Jones knew that the ready cash was not available for this purchase. Why did he not get up at the meeting and say: “Well, gentlemen, we have not the cash to spare, and I for one will not agree to the purchase?” There would then have been no “cap-in-hand” business, and no hurt dignity. And why, too, did the chairman not have the courtesy to allow the clerk, as requested by a member of the board, to explain a position which had arisen? I feel sure he could have done so in a few minutes. Instead of this, a reflection was cast upon his capabilities, and he was informed that he was only “a paid servant of the board.” JugTICE

FROM THE MAYOR OF DEVONPORT

Sir, — There are two items of news in your Thursday’s paper which do not accurately represent the full significance of my statements. I should be much obliged if you would correct the impressions conveyed in your reports of my remarks on destruction at Rangitoto and the electrification of Devonport’s pumping plant. With regard to the former the statement made by your correspondent in the heading reads: “Spoiling Rangitoto: Mayor Says He Saw No Evidence of Damage.” Words to the same effect are used in the article itself. This is an incomplete report. The board was receiving a specific complaint from a visitor to the island, and I replied that I had not seen the particular damage to which he was referring. I am quite cognisant of the quarrying operations, the value of which has been publicly explained by me on several occasions. In my statement on the delay in changing over from steam to electricity I certainly did refer to the omission of automatic overload releasers, which were specified as being one cause, but I did not stress it as being the only impediment. I specially mentioned defective waterpipes as being the primary cause, and this was a council responsibility. In justice to the electrical contractors, I should be obliged if you would thus amplify your previous report. ERNEST ALDRIDGE. Mayor of Devonport.

COSMOGONY—BIBLICAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC

Sir,— Your correspondent, J. G. Hughes criticises what he considers the blun-’ ders of Charles Darwin. Anyone acquainted with Darwin’s works must be aware of his passionate devotion to

truth; of the enormous collections of data, the careful sifting of all possible objections, carried out before stating a conclusion. Well would it be if his critics could profit by his honest example. Darwin was fully aware that the term fortuity or chance is merely used to indicate our ignorance of some particular sequence of cause and effect. To talk of “false" and "true” fortuity, as does Mr. Hughes, merely displays lack of appreciation of the true significance of that term. It did not require the theory of evolution to shatter Paley’s watch argument—the reflection that the supposed traveller in the parable recognises the watch as a product of design in contrast with the desert is sufficient to destroy that design argument. Under the transparent guise of a wise mediator, standing midway between the so-called extremes of modernism and fundamentalism, Mr Hughes urges in reality, the adoption by scientists of the irreconcilable creation stories (he does not state which) appearing in Genesis. But that is exactly the fundamentalist’s ardent and futile aim, so that your correspondent is evidently a fundamentalist in disgmse. Could there be anything more ridiculous than to imagine that our scientists, with their vast stores or accumulated facts in the realms of geology, biology, anatomy, physiology, embryology, psychology and anthropology. would scrap these demonstrable and dependable sciences in favour of believing the bald and contradictory creation narratives, which even by theologians with any pretence to erudition, are admitted to be primitive guesses at cosmic origins. All the sciences enumerated testify to the fact of evolution, and there has not been for more than 20 years a single authority on the subject in the world who has any doubt about the truth of evolution. We might as reasonably agitate for the citizens of London to return to the skins and woad of the ancient Britons as for science to turn back 60 years to the superceded Biblical cosmogony. A.E.C.

IRELAND

Sir.— If Ireland has been ever faithful to the memories of her dead patriots, could she forget commemorating Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths, the founders of the new Irish. Free State? Speaking at a recent commemoration of these heroic men, President Cosgraye said: "It is fitting we should pause in our work once a year to renew our faith in our country’s glory apfi destiny by the contemplation of the lives of those men. For their lives are an inspiring message to us who “T® 1“* to carr y On their work. Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins are two names that must be for ever linked to--111 minds of our people;. Each had his individuality of character, temS ment and outlook, but both were SreJU? Bre f l '“perishable things that arateiv* S' fr 2 m thinkin 6 of them septhe other ” WaS the compliment o! CLAN COXAL.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS

Speared l ' ur ]’'tter has already apanother newspaper. the erdrant'"’ I he birthplaces of land ln the Miss New Zeabeen published PetiU ° n haVe alrea *' not s ” pp,ied U ' yOUrS