Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 477, 5 October 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say —

(To the Editor.)

CLIMATE—WET OR DRY? Sir, — I was extremely surprised at seeing in a recent issue of The Sun a comment made by a writer on the excessive rainfall of Auckland. Now, speaking quite candidly, I would like to dispute this. In signing himself “Immigrant,’* lie causes us to understand that he has travelled more than the average man, but I cannot see how such a person could possibly intimate, and he has done so, that there are two seasons in New Zealand, the wet and the wetter. Being a native of a Mediterranean country, I am in a position to say that compared with some countries, New Zealand is quite dry. We have the testimony of the numerous farmers, whose losses have been very sever© recently, to bear out this claim. Then, again, what about the monsoon season in India? A brief glance at statistics will show how our friend has been misled. COSMOPOLITAN. PROHIBITION Sir,— Putting aside the wild utterances of Mr. Fletcher, it is incontrovertible that there are men and women of high character and good principles in the dry” movement, and it is to these that X would appeal. Have they seriously considered what the effect would be of prohibition in this country at the present time? Do they know that it would cause a big wave of unemployment? Do they know that it would break up hundreds, perhaps, thousands of decent homes? Have they considered loss of revenue on customs and excise duties—a loss that would have to be made up by some form of added taxation. If prohibition were carried, we would have to put an army of spies to enforce the law. We have the example of America to warn us against legislation of this kind. On top of it all is the certainty that prohibition in New Zealand would not prohibit. There is admittedly room for improvement in the licensing laws of this country, but the power to bring about such improvement is rendered abortive by those "who can see no good in anything short of prohibition. OLIVER MASON. DRESS AND DIXIELAND Sir, — Mr. Harold Schmidt’s screed in The Sun of Wednesday surpasses any of his previous efforts for cool impudence. The suggestion that “The probabiliity”—he is definite, and does not say “the possibility”—would be for girls to go from swimming bath to the dance hall in their bathing attire is ludicrous. Minhinnick has already exploited this theme in one of his inimitable cartoons. However, the humour of his remarks is quite lost on me, and I strongly re

sent his impertinence in assuming that l, or any person connected with Dixieland, Ltd., would allow any incor-rectly-attired person to enter the cabaret. Mr. Schmidt is obviously ignorant of Dixieland’s standard of dress for its dancers. Evening dress is esesntial, except in special instances where some visitor to Auckland is gi m admittance in a dark lounge suit, not having brought his evening clothes with him. The dress of girls attending the cabaret needs no comment, as most people are aware of the pride the modern girl takes in her toilet when attending evening functions. We grow weary of endeavouring to pound into the perception of such people as Mr. Schmidt that Dixieland baths will not interfere with the foreshore. That strip of glistening sand—about 40 feet wide—fronting Dixieland, will in no way be interfered with and, in addition to this, the public will still have some hundred yards of delightful mud in which to disport itself if it so desires. If the public can find the water when it desires it, then, no doubt, it prefers the open water for bathing. The difficulty at Point Chevalier is that the water is not there at the beck and call of bathers. [See above re mud.] By the way, is Mr. Schmidt a swimmer, or just a firesile critic? Mr. Schmidt’s "~tition will no doubt receive the full support of his adherents at the last mayoral election, and thus will occasion Dixieland, Ltd., no uneasiness. The commission investigated facts, not fancies. It issued its dictum. The council has held its loan poll and—well, where are we? In conclusion, let me revert to my original topic, and state quite definitely that I doubt if even one of Dixieland’s many patrons would have thought of the suggestion put forward by Mr. Schmidt. It has remained for him to bring it before their notice. N. W. LOVERIDGE, Manager, Dixieland, Ltd. RATS AND FLEAS Sir, — As I sit in my office (working overtime) listening to the hordes of weighty rats enjoying their nocturnal “daily dozen” in the wall lining, it brings to mind the very forcible fact that Auckland is one of the “rattiest” cities I have seen for years. Not that I mind the rat as an animal—dear me, no—l love animals; but the fact remains that as a disease carrier he is the last thing on four legs. Our moribund City Council evidently does not claim a knowledge of natural history, otherwise it would know that the scoria and volcanic formation of the country around Auckland is eminently suitable for breeding a race of “oversize” rats. I could name several breeding centres;—The Auckland Zoo, old Queen Street properties, miles of scoria walls, etc. lam not making extravagant statements: in fact, I could tolerate the pests but for their potential danger as plague carriers. To hear them gambolling around,