Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 231, 19 December 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say —

TRAMWAY DANGERS Sir, — There has been some talk of the habit motormen have, in trams, of carrying on conversation. On one line at least this is an almost invariable practice, and I think it "will be admitted a dangerous one, I have no desire to get any tramway employee into trouble, for I am sure they are all good chaps, but the rule that motormen must not be spoken to should be strictly enforced. To my knowledge the talking habit has persisted for at leas 18 months. I would suggest that the tramway authorities took more rides in the tramcars. Something might then be done. FOOTPAD. RAILWAY CROSSINGS Sir, — Once more we have a level crossing accident to deplore. Why not, at least, in the suburban areas, imitate what is done in Europe, where people have been taught by a long - experience? When it is too costly to suppress a crossing, a rolling metallic barrier is set up on each side of the railway track; with a female guard living in a cottage built 10 yards away. The barrier is closed by the guard a few minutes before the train is due and opened immediately after the passage of the train. It would also have the advantage of helping a few war widows with little ones to make a living. GREEN FLAG.

THE REJECTION OF THE PRAYER BOOK MEASURE, 1927 Sir, — Although I am by no means in agreement with all the alterations contained in the Prayer Book measure, I cannot help deploring the action of the House of Commons in rejecting that measure. The Church has, through her official channels, her convocations and her primates, assured Parliament that none of the changes proposed alter in any way the doctrinal standpoint of the Church. In giving that assurance the spokesmen of the Church have had behind them an overwhelming majority of opinion in the Church. Yet Parliament has had the temerity to say, in effect, “We do not accept your assurance.” Its action is, to say the least, a serious discourtesy to the agred Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Church. It is to be particularly regretted that churchmen, having failed to have their point of view adopted by the Church, should have carried on their agitation into a secular and non-church Parliament. They, at least, might have shown loyalty to the Church and its

(To the Editor.)

leaders, to the extent of regarding their battle as lost, when it was lost in convocation. Whatever may be one’s opinions with regard to the merits or demerits of the revisions, there is no disputing the fact that they have behind them a weight of Church authority which could scarcely be surpassed; and it ill behoves churchmen to have been found flying in the face of that authority outside the councils of the Church Itself. Although no one can tell what will now happen, it is most probable that the Church 'will make another attempt to have the measure passed, or that a strong movement in favour of disestablishment will arise in the Church. It is intolerable that Parliament shall be permitted to dictate to the Church in matters doctrinal, or to flout the wishes of the Church in a way which shows Parliament to be more susceptible to the agitations of a small but noisy minority than to the opinions of responsible authority within the Church. G. GORDON BELL NO SABRE-RATTLING Sir, I thank your correspondents, “S.S.” and “War Against War” for their timely replies to “Old Mars.” At a time when the best minds in the world are expressing their revulsion against the insensate slaughter of young life that follows in the wake of war, I think it regrettable that men like “Old Mars” should be sabre-rattling- Surely, sir, the brandishing of the sword is a gesture that can well be dispensed with at the present juncture. I am not a conscientious objector and I served in a humble capacity in the Great War for four years, but I must confess the ; tone of “Old Mars’s” letter appalled me. MODERATE. BROADCASTING THE TROTS Sir, We have been reading a lot in the papers on the subject of broadcasting trotting meetings. It appears that the Broadcasting Company is indignant with the trotting authorities for refusing to permit descriptions of races to be sent over the air; that is, without payment of a reasonable sum for the privilege. I am with the trotting authorities. "Why should such privilege be given to the company unless payment is made? Radio fans have to pay for their licences and from the revenue so gained payment should be made for all services. If there is any doubt whether the listening public desires to hear the broadcast trots, let the company hold a plebiscite of listeners. I think it would find that the majority would favour such a course, preferring it, say, to an afternoon gramophone concert. But an end should be made to the argument. If the trotting authorities say payment must be made, let the company make TROTTING AND RADIO FAN.