Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 561, 14 January 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

SAMOA Sir.— I am pleased to see The Sun publishing letters, commenting on the treatment of Tamasese. It must be remembered that the Samoan question was one of the principal rocks, if not the principal, upon which the ship of Reform was stranded. As a supporter of the United Party, I would like to ask Sir Joseph Ward if the same policy is to he continued in Samoalf so, there will be genuine disappointment among a great many. VOTER.

TAKAPUNA BEACH

Sir,— Might I suggest that there is room for improvement in the disgusting condition of the public bathing and sanitary accommodation at Takapuna Beach? Writing with a fairly good acquaintance with most of t,he main centre beaches in New Zealand, I have no hesitation in saying that, without exception, Takapuna is the worst. The place positively reeks with dirt and filth, and the sahitary arrangements are shocking. The bathing sheds are certainly free to the public, but I think most people would infinitely prefer to pay a small charge for decent facilities than have the present system free. BATHER. TRANSPORT bl What a lot of vexation the Motor Omnibus Act and Transport Board Act have inflicted on the public. Nearly every night the paper has some protest in its correspondence columns. There was never any trouble about transport before these Acts were passed, and when anyone who wished could run a service. Then, the fares were 50 per cent, below what they are now, and the services provided were more than ample. It is quite a simple matter to set everything right again. Just repeal both these Acts and let the public services compete or get out of business. Anyway, the Transport Board constitution was not even put to the popular vote, and it is not at all likely that the public will vote tine personnel of this board any money when it asks for loans. DLORAH.

“AMPLIFYING POWER”

Sir,— The Sun is a newspaper and not a scientific journal, but 1 believe it is sufficiently wide-awake to allow all subjects to be briefly discussed in its columns. Hence I take the liberty to point out a significant fact regarding this problem of “converting staticpower into Current,” mentioned in the news item under the above heading. All frictional and electrostatic induction machines in which the current is drawn off as a spark discharge are machines for turning static-power into current. Now, sir, every physics book maintains that the energy used to drive these machines is the real source of the current obtained. I emphatically dispute this! Surely it' is obvious that the real source of the current is the spurious chemical action taking place

in the air-gap, of which the spark is the visible evidence. Consider the friction machine, all that the rubbing does is to generate the static charges of opposite sign, one of which is used again to induce a charge of opposite sign on the prime conductor. Now this charge of opposite sign would still be induced on the prime conductor even though the gap was a vacuum; but there would be no sparkdischarge and resulting current if we turned the machine till doomsday. Is further analysis needed? Consequently the correct explanation of these machines seems to be that the current is obtained by burning a practically unlimited free fuel—air! Why the spark discharge is entirely ignored by all physics books when discussing the working of these machines is beyond my comprehension. I would be greatly interested to hear the opinions of the experts on this point. A. CHAPPLE. bwanson. THE COSTLEY HOME Sir. With reference to “Sympathetic’s” letter regarding the T.B. shelters, he states that the inmates said thev were delighted with their home. etc. I wish to contradict him, and say that “Sympathetic” may have spoken to one patient, and perhaps that one has been in orphanages and hdspitals all his life, and does not know the comfort x>f being in a home of his own. “Sympathetic” should come here after a shower of rain, and see how comfortable it is, with water lying an inch deep up to the verandahs. However, we do feel grateful to Mr. Rowe and the secretary of the Auckland Racing Club, and the trotting club. A PATIENT. HANDICAPPING Sir,— Mr. Revel, an owner, writes of inconsistencies by handicappers, and states that’Mr. Paul’s work makes the public, owners, and trainers wonder why such things are permitted. He may be correct in his remarks, insofar as the owners and trainers are concerned, but I believe the public to be much more greatly interested in the problem of inconsistencies by drivers. Solve for them the problem of whether a local light will be scouting round the outer, or whether the cleverer ones from the South will be glued to the inner or not, and you will have done; the public a far greater service than pointing out discrepancies in handicaps. To Mr. Revell, the handicapping question is a vital one, but to the man in the crowd it matters little if Jean McElwyn is on 4.32 or 4.33. He would pick something else to beat her—and he would be sure to be wrong, so what’s the use? FREE FOR ALL. IN THE BEGINNING Sir. If “J.M.J.” wishes to support his contention that people believe in God not because they were taught to do so, but because of an inner urge, such as the case witli'sleeping, then he should cite examples of persons who, never having had such teaching either by (Continued in next column)

word, action, or example, yet give evidence of that “inner urge.” “j t .. asks: “Where does a man obtain his capacity for good?” I might retort by asking where does he get his capawfn i° r , e^ ll? A study of evolution will explain to our possession of both characteristsics. These remarks reply equally to -Faith,” who fully justifies his nom de plume by his wholehearted but uncritical acceptance of “J’.M.J.’s” statements. It is disappointing, however, to find that, after all, Mr. Field rests his proof in part upon the design argument, and his statement that science has nothing but the design argument is to me unintelligible. To Mr. Field, all the works of nature are perfect. Just think—among these perfect works are dread diseases, some of which Mr. Field himself hopes to eradicate. If disease germs are perfect works of God, and according to the design argument, sent for some good purpose, does Mr. Field think it right to eradicate them. Further, among these alleged perfect works we have the multitude of insects and animals that prey on man and on one another, the devastating. earthquake, the town and shipwrecking tornado—in all, a category of evils too long to enumerate. Man is in no way responsible for the majority of these things, yet they strike down the just and unjust, the innocent and guilty alike. They are all among the. “perfect works of nature” upon which Mr. Field partly relies for his proof. Is there any wonder that theologians are quietly dropping the design argument, or openly declaring it discredited? Mr. Field does not know any fundamental contradiction in the Bible either with its own .statements or commonly accepted facts. There are over 50 of the first variety. Let us take the first, occurring in Genesis. In Gen. ii., 17, God is recorded as warning Adam that in the day he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die. Adam thereafter eats and does not die, but in Gen. v.. 5, we are told lived for 930 years! A good example of the second class (of which there are hundreds) is found in Jos. x„ 12-13, where Joshua is credited w!th keeping the sun and moon in the same meridional position lor a whole day. As an astronomer, Mr. Field will appreciate the piquant upheaval of the solar system required to produce this effect, and all to the end that Joshua might have time to kill more men! It is impossible to go into all the issues raised by Mr. Field withou. overburdening your space, but if Mr. Field has any doubt that our progress has transformed the earth in the past 100 years, and the credit due to science, lie should read that fully documented work, “1825-1925,” a Century of Stupendous Progress,” for a mine of in.ormation on the matter. _ _ A.E.C.