Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 566, 19 January 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

EARWIGS 1 Sir, — As a reader of your paper, I should , be grateful if you could advise, through your columns, of anything which would tend to exterminate earwigs which infest the house (a new one) in which I ; am living. Thanking you in anticipation, B. [Perhaps some of our readers will sup- , ply “B” with a means of getting rid of these pests.—Ed. The Sun.] ‘GRANDSTAND PLAY” Sir, — Kindly allow me a little space to discuss transport. I was exceedingly pleased to see Crs. Allum and Phelan take a dignified stand against the tactics of two of the suburban members. What these gentlemen require to do is to free their minds of bias, and go into the question with open minds. We city ratepayers have already obstructionists who call meetings to no purpose. We can afford to carry a few jokes. But one can have too much of a thing—especially when those who adopt these tactics have nothing better, or as good, to offer as those whom they oppose. Get on with the business, and let there be less playing to the grandstand ! PROGRESSIVE. ‘PERMANENT PAUPERS” Sir, — Information gathered on above two subjects, on pages one and ten respectively of The Sun, 16th inst., must surely provide food for serious thought to anyone genuinely concerned with the general welfare of all. Tour financial authority, "Koon Call," reports “a big surplus of capital seeking profitable avenues of investment,” etc. Mr. Wallace, chairman of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board expresses his fears of “permanent pauperism.” Mr. W'allace should be taken seriously on this subj ject. He is in the position to knowmore of it than most. Now. sir, one need not necessarily be a confirmed Bolshevik nor a budding genius if, on summing up the total, one finds in the answer a direct challenge to Christian civilisation and/or com-mon-sense; humanitarianism. HUMAN. THAT “FARCICAL MEETING” Sir.—X was amazed to read in your issue of Thursday of the Mayor’s attack upon me from the Town Hall platform on Wednesday afternoon. Let it be known that although my letter, objecting to the council’s desire to close and to sell, privately, an end of Mills Lane (one of the oldest . streets in the mercantile portion of the city, within a stone’s throw from . the centre of Queen Street) was de- , livered to the town clerk in tire middle of December last, I have not to date received the courtesy of even a bare acknowledgment of its l’eceipt by him ■ More important is the fact that neither tho Mayor, nor the town clerk ini formed me personally that a meeting was being held to consider my letter

to the council or that I would be afforded any opportunity to voice my objection and my reasons for lodging it. The Town Hall administration simply ignored me, personally, in the matter.

I had neither knowledge nor sus- ! picion that a meeting was being held or that a vote was being taken last ' Wednesday afternoon. The fact of my absence was publicly animadverted upon by the Mayor, who, with the town clerk at his elbow, entirely omitted to state to the 300 people listening to his sneers, that no word had even been telephoned to me from the Town Hall that my objection was to be dealt with at Wednesday’s “farcical meeting.” The holding of such an unprecedented public meeting at the busy hour of 3 p.m. was surely designed to exclude suburban business men, like myself, and also all working electors of both sexes. I consider that, apart from the discourtesy of nonreply to my letter, the Mayor’s comments upon my absence betrayed a regrettable want of appreciation of the dignity of the office of Mayor of this city. F. W. JEFFERS. Jervois Road, Herne Bay, 18/1/29. In reply to this letter is was pointed out at the Town Hall this morning that the meeting was fully advertised, and hundreds of people with less interest than Mr. Jeffers, or at any rate, no more apparent interest, saw the advertisement. and attended the meeting.—Ed. The Sun. CHILDREN IN TRAMS I noticed in an article on transport matters you mentioned that in Dunedin children are carried on trams at half rates conditionally upon their giving up their seats to adults when necessary. This matter could well be taken up by the newly-formed Transport Board. I have noticed repeatedly that childrenalthough paying “half,” never dream of giving their seats to those paying ftill fares, old ladies and old men stand. I presume they are considered . obsolete by these kiddies and that ! standing will not hurt them. The practice is encouraged by par- i ents, who tell their children to remain seated, even when a child sometimes attempts to rise. TRAM USER. TELEOLOGY IN SCIENCE Sir,— I am sorry to have given “A.E.C.” so much trouble. From the way he wrote, I thought there must be plenty of theologians who have gone back on the design argument. If I had known he would have to go all the way to England to find just one, I might not have put him to such trouble. What he says of Professor James hardly matters, for he was not a theologian, and the quotation from him is worthless. Of lots of books we may say they do “little more than gather dust in libraries.” But j that does not say their arguments are , defeated. And I know Professor James made reference to old theistic ; arguments as he did only to emphasise the new arguments for God which r appealed more to him as a psycholo(Continued in next column.)

gist. I am glad “A.E.C.” gave us the titles of the Rev. C. J. Shebbeare, wh" was the solitary theologian he named. What a pity that theologians in New Zealand with higher degrees in theology could not be named in evidence! That “his statement of the demise of the old design argument was quietly accepted by the conference,” “A.E.C." informs us. But what does “quietly accepted” mean? I suppose they voted on it by a show of hands, but so quietly that nobody voiced or debated any motion! If the issue were Darwin or design, I’d vote for both. But evolution and design are not antagonist*' evolution sends the runner-bean up tfe* pole, but a designing fellow like nv may help the bean to get hold of tbu pole. Some Americans say: ‘Evolution involves involution.” The acorn evolves into the oak because the rak was involved in the acorn. Who said “adaptation of organs, etc.,” were th* “chosen grounds” of the design argument? And that the design argument was defeated on these grounds? I suppose anyone might say that, but let “A.E.C.” or anyone else prove it. When Mr. Field stated that “the design argument is practically all that science has to work upon,” “A.E.C.” replied: “Hi> statement that science has nothing but the design argument is to me unintelligible.” If “A.E.C.” were more conversant with modern science he would know that “telic interpretation,” S" far as tendencies are indicated in th* processes analysed, is an integral part in modern science. Teleology is implicit in science, but “A.E.C. would rather confess his opponent s argument to be “unintelligible” to him than own he is beaten. FREE THINKER