Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 209, 23 November 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

CRICKET UMPIRES Sir, — In your cricket notes in last Wednesday’s paper you state that over at the Shore an umpire gave a batsman out, without an appeal from the wicketkeeper. As I happen to be the umpire in question I would like to know where your reporter procured his information, as there was a decided appeal from Mr. Rountree, which could be heard from all parts of the ground. R. E. TURTON. A COSTLY SMOKE Sir, — Before a magistrate last week, a young man was fined £5, and costs los, for taking his hands from the handles of his motor-cycle to light his pipe while riding near the village of Otahuhu. The act was termed “swank” by the magistrate. Fancy going to Otahuhu to swank! Now let me quote, for comparison, other punishments. A Chinese, for driving without a light, was fined 30s; several £2 fines for speeding, and one, £3; a fine of £5 for being drunk in charge of a motorcar. Now, if it costs £5 10s to “swank” at Otahuhu, surely it would cost £IOO in Auckland, because in the city one has the risk of killing and maiming people. I wonder if it is “swank” for a motorman on a tramcar to take his hands from the control to attend to the destination signs? I have lived in many lands, but never have I observed so many laws and restrictions as there are in New Zealand. If half of them were scrappped, New Zealand would make some progress, and not stagnate as she is doing, in spite of natural advantages. LABOURITE. TRADING WITHIN THE FAMILY Sir, In view of the flourish of trumpets which has accompanied Mr. Amery’s remarks on preferential trade, a perusal of what he said at the luncheon in the Town Hall concert chamber, as reported, reads tamely. Every free trader would support the application of science to the soils of the Dominions with a view to increasing economic production and Empire trade. Nor would anyone cavil at the doctrine of buying (only) Empire goods, price and quality equal. Mr. Amery is delightfully vague. “He was not discouraging a generous measure of trade with the outside world” (the measure presumably to be meted out by preferentialists) and “perhaps some day the British example might be embodied in the economic organisation of the world at large, but the task of this generation was to build up the strength of our own commonwealth.” Now, in view of the fact that the Empire is large enough to be “self-contained,” why the “generous measure of trade with the outside world?” Why stop half way when on a delightful and profitable road? The second quotation from Mr. Amery’s address implies conscious weakness in his argument and suggests that “trading within the family” as distinct from trading within the whole human family, is merely an expedient for “this generation,” and not really sound doctrine for all generations. I wonder if the supporters of tariffs

designed to penalise foreign countries ever think of the inevitability of reprisals? America employs foreign shippers (mostly British) to carry her overseas goods, to the value of nearly £100,000,000 annually (£96,000,000 in 1926). What if the United States were to use some of her great wealth to subsidise American “bottoms” and take this and other trade away from England by way of retaliation? We may adopt a policy “expedient” (but unsound) to benefit the British family at the expense of the larger family, but can we “get away with it?” Then there is another aspect of the case. Taking the Empire as one complete unit, how can foreign imports reduce our total trade, since all trade is a matter of exchange? Must not world wide trade giving U 6 the whole of the advantages and resources of the planet to draw on, instead of a part only (the Empire) result in increased trade, not only for us but for the rest of the human family? I wonder if such thoughts ever enter into the philosophy of the present British Cabinet? C.H.N.

FRANKTON RAILWAY STATION Sir, It is time someone spoke up about one, at least, of the arrangements at the Frankton Junction. It is my misfortune that I have to catch the 8.34 p.m. (or thereabouts) train for Auckland very frequently, with little or no time to spare. Now it is bad enough that the distance from the public entrance, where cars and buses drop you with your luggage, heavy or light according to your luck, to the ticket oflice, etc., is further by about fifty times than any other station in New Zealand. I say that is bad enough, heaven knows; but when one reaches the platform one’s troubles are only beginning. With devilish ingenuity the powers at Frankton olace the Auckland train at the very extreme end, the northern end, of this abnormally long platform, and in this way manage to make all passengers, including old ladies m and semi-decrepit old chaps like myself, walk and carry their baggage a further awful distance 7 —twice as far as necessary in fact. It is all so silly and so mnecessary. and if many travellers prefer to use the motor services now running Cron Hamilton the Minister of Railways need not be greatly surprised. I cannot understand why the Hamilton people tolerate such a state >f Vhings, or why they do not insist on he overhead foot-bridge being moved a few hundred yards nearer to where the trains arrive and depart. FOOTSORE AND WEARY. THE FERRY DISASTER Sir, The story of the tragic collision between the steamship Tahiti and ferry steamer Greycliffe recalls an incident of long ago which was reported in the English newspapers. The ill-fated leviathan Titantic was steaming out to sea, on her trial trip, and her course lay close past an ocean steamer of some 20,000 tons, which lay securely moored alongside a neighbouring wharf. The Titantic was. if I remember rightly, about 40,000 tons, and as she steamed past the smaller vessel the latter broke adrift from her moorings, as if these were mere withes, and danced off in the wake of the ocean

monster, yielding to the influence of attraction, and the “draw” occasioned by the vortex of water resulting from the Titanic’s progress. The conditions were certainly different in the recent tragedy, for the ocean liner was following in the wake of the smaller vessel, but is it not possible that attraction, and the suction caused by the displacement of water in the wake of the Greycliffe, may not have largely contributed to the collision? Uft& EXPERIENCE Sir.— After Mr. Sim’s expression of distrust in metaphysics. I am surprised that he should ask me to discuss the problem of experience. This means a leap into the very cockpit of metaphysics. I confess that I hesitated on the brink, and still hesitate. Experience in its widest sense has been described as all that human beings have apprehended by means of their faculties. Religious experience is all that hunaa beings have apprehended by their spiritual faculty. The most essential aspect of religious experience is awareness of God—awareness of an unseen but very real spiritual environment Christian men and women have declared down the centuries that they know God by immediate experience. This testimony may not convince outsiders. but no outsider can refute it Xothing can establish certainty so surely as immediate knowledge. direct awareness. Theology gives a reasoned interpretation of religious experience. This is what I meant when I said that theology was based on experience, combined with reason and faith. Mr. Sim asks me to mention two religious dogmas that are based on experience and verified by experiment. Tn® answer is not difficult. Belief in G° a and the doctrine of sin are based on Christian experience and continuously verified by experiment. This has been the unwavering testimony of all the saints and mystics and of millions oi ordinary Christian men and women. This testimony cannot be shaken . the fact that Mr. Sim and his friend may not have this experience, any than my testimony to having seen in sun could be disproved by the testimon of 50 blind men that the sun is not visible to them. There is no differen in principle between religious ence and any other experience " v. 1 claims to be an apprehension of reality* In reply to “A.E.C’s” last need only say this: I have stated rig through that the existence of an ternal world cannot be proved; it ™ » be accepted as an act of faith. • now twists this perfectly plain ment into a denial of the objecu existence of matter as a fact. He seem to think that what cannot be pr° to exist cannot exist. NORMAN BURTONTThis correspondence is now closed. —Kditor, THE SUN.] NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS “Student” (Morrinsville). — the correspondence is now closed. - I'***• 1 '***• THE SUN.