Citizens Say —

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 473, 1 October 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

AIR V. WATER

Sir,— The postponement of the return flight across the Tasman Sea is a clear indication that it will be many years (if ever) before the air replaces the water as a safe, efficient and punctual form of sea travel. It appeals to the imagination to say “We will soon be able to leave Auckland on Saturday night and have Sunday morning breakfast in Sydney,” and as a stunt for jaded pleasure-seekers, it may now and again be possible; but add waiting time to flying time, and I think the sceamer will be a winner three times out of four. It is well to consider these points, and not to be led away’ by exuberant ideas about establishing a regular mail and passenger service across the Tasman. Kingsford Smith and Ulm have one of the finest and best-equipped machines in the world to-day, yet they have to await the moods of one of the trickiest stretches of sea known to the mariner, while the steamer ploughs on unchecked. BUSIXESS MAX. MISS STOCKLEY AT OLYMPIC GAMES Sir, — In your issue of September 27 you publish a report by the manager of the Xew Zealand Olympic team, in which he states that Miss Ena Stockley was fortunate to strike an easy heat to qualify in the backstroke event at the Olympic Games. The statement is surprising, and suggests that Mr. Amos is not acquainted with the actual position. According to cabled reports received in Xew Zealand (and to the reports in the English papers) of the contest in question, Miss Stockley was third in her heat, which was won in world’s record time, and qualified because she was the fastest third. This fact stifles the suggestion that Miss Stockley was fortunate to strike an easy heat, for she would not have qualified had any other contestant bettered her time. To be a finalist at the Olympic Games is no mean performance, and as she was the only Xew Zealander to reach the finals besides the Olympic champion boxer, Morgan, such an honour should not be detracted from in any way, especiallj r in an official report by the manager of the Olympic team. SEA LIOXL A FUTILE TRANSPORT MUDDLE Sir, In to-night’s paper you state that the City Council proposes a poll of city ratepayers on the question as to

whether they are willing to allow residents of the outer areas to become shareholders in paying the huge debt owing on the unprofitable city transport services. The idea Is to make residents of outside boroughs responsible for the huge debt owing on the trams, obsolete buses, and to recoup the City Council for all the moneys they have | wasted in commissions, legal expenses, trips abroad, and all sorts of unnecessary expenditure that no private concern would ever commit itself to. Apparently the residents of adjoining boroughs will become responsible not only for the present stock-in-trade, but also for moneys foolishly or wisely spent in the past. It is, of course, a r oregone conclusion that city ratepayers will be only too happy to saddle the residents of outside boroughs with the huge city transport debt; but what about the residents of the outside boroughs? Are they not to be given a poll so that they can refuse to be saddled with this debt? In the proposed board the council is to nominate six members and the outer areas four, which is the same as the council having two members and the outer areas none. But there is even worse than this—for one member of the present City Council will get the chairmanship, for six years, at £250 a year. Had the proposed board been completely composed of a body elected by the ratepayers of the whole area, there would not be much possibility of a city councillor obtaining a seat. The present City Council is notorious for the lack of public confidence reposed in it, and this is not surprising. One thing is certain about the whole business, and that is if the Government passes a Bill which will make residents of the outer areas responsible for the city’s huge transport debt, then it will get a salutary lesson at the next election. Already residents in the outer areas are demanding from candidates the pledge to repeal the Motor Omnibus Act, and give outside local bodies the right to arrange their own transport, and quite rightly so. for the outer areas are no more responsible for the blunders of the City Council than is Auckland responsible for Wellington mistakes. HAROLD SCHMIDT. GIRLS’ ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Sir, — It is not my desire to continue a long controversy in your columns on the above subject, but so many of the remarks of “Labor Omnia Vincit” need correcting tha t I once more crave your Indulgence. To state that the hockey authorities were not energetic enough to organise a system to collect money from the public is ridiculous. The Hockey (Continued in next column.)

Association was energetic enough to have the ground retained as a sports ground. The boys had their sport and were willing to pay for it. They did not ask the public to do so. Why the hockey people lost the Remuera ground is so clear to anyone knowing the facts that it is useless to reiterate the reason. There is one thing your correspondent should always bear in mind. Who was it that had the ground retained for sport? When that question is answered then no unbiased person can but sympathise with the Hockey Association in the treatment it has received, and tho action of the Girls’ Athletic Association. Why did not the Girls’ Association obtain another ground and help relieve the congestion of sports grounds? Then they could have expected support from people who are at present antagonistic. The statement “the arbitrary action of the Dilworth Trust Board” was not made by me, and therefore your correspondent must look elsewhere for an answer. “The Girls’ Sports Association has now the amount of £2OO to its credit, which through persistent labour it has well earned” (vide your correspondent.) If the rattling of collection boxes in Queen Street (which we are led to believe brought in £l5O to the £200) can be called “persistent labour” then the Girls’ Association will be sweated to death after six months’ management of the Remuera ground. VERITE SANS PE UR. THE DECALOGUE Sir, — If I were to write an article on the Ten Commandments and commenced by stating that according to the Rev. Mr. Sharp they were supernaturally ordained, but afterwards I gave reasons against that view, there would be no excuse for anyone quoting my opening statement as my opinion. Similarly I can see no excuse for Mr. Sharp, who quotes the opening description in the Ency. Biblica (which distinctly states “according to the Biblical narrative”) as the considered opinion of the Encyclopaedia writer, when the latter gives definite facts against that literal view immediately after. Further on Mr. Sharp endeavours to make it appear my statement “that the Elohist document is our earliest external witness,” when this was obviously a quotation from the same scholarly article. It is the decisive view of the Encyclopaedia Biblica and every other enlightened authority that the most primitive written expression of the decalogue occurred among the Hebrews “long after the time of Moses.” No amount of casuistry can overcome this conclusion of Biblical scholarship. When Mr. Sharp admits under pressure that the ethical laws of the decalogue were well known and practised by other nations thousands of years before Moses, he throws away his whole case for a unique revelation. There remains only the question of Horeb and Sinai. I would gladly have dealt with this in my last letter but for lack of space, and not from discretion as Mr. Sharp hints. Anyone acquainted with the Old Testament knows that there is the utmost confusion regarding Horeb and Sinai ana the location of this sacred mountain or mountains where Yah we was supposed to dwell. Christians commonly suppose it to be Mount Sinai of our day, but Judges v., 4, gives it as Edom in S. Judea, while i. Kings xix. 8 as a very different locality, since Elijah could scarce have taken a remote desert journey when he was already fainting at the close of a single day. It was this confusion to which I referred. Of course with faith we may believe anything, but it is then futile to appeal to reason as does Mr. Sharp. In concluding my contribution to this discussion I would say that thank 9 of readers are due to The Sun for it* courtesy in allowing much space to the impartial discussion of this and many other interesting topics, “verboten” by other dailies. A.E.C. NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT “Ratepayer.”—Probably the result oi good advertising. Where there is a danger of someone being hurt in a crowd, the police have every right to be present.—Editor, The Sun.