Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 567, 21 January 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say —

(To the Editor.)

THE STREET CONCERT

Sir,— Is it not time the City Council restrained the noises issuing: from numerous gramophone shops in the city? Surely the “music” can be confined to the shops themselves, and not broadcast to a suffering public. From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in my Queen street office I receive a massed attack of “Ramona.” “The Prisoner’s Song-,” "Hallelujah,” “Breeze,” etc. It is sometimes difficult to carry on a telephone conversation. ** HANDEL.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT

Sir,— “A.E.C.” is quite wrong when he quotes the Rev. C. J. Shebbeare as a theologian who has abandoned the design argument. Mr. Shebbeare describes his book, “The Challenge of the Universe,” as a “popular restatement or the argument from design.” The design argument as stated by Paley was in accordance with the best science of that time. The coming of evolution has not made Hie argument worthless, but it has had to be stated in a new form. This work of restatement has been convincingly done by modern theologians from different points of view. Mr. Shebbeare bases his argument on the observed agreement of the world as we see it with that standard of rationality which exists in our minds. If this agreement is merely an accident, what ground could we have for confidence that this appearance of rationality will continue? Why should not the wildest absurdities occur at any moment? If, however, the rational appearance of the world is not an accident, this implies the dominance throughout the universe of the standard which right reason sets up. This means the government of the world by principles of wisdom, and leads us to some form of theistic belief. The theory of evolution is not incompatible with Christian theism. In fact, evolution finds its most rational explanation in God. NORMAN BURTON.

FARES TO POINT CHEVALIER

Sir. —* Mr. Allum stated at the meeting of the Transport Board on January 17 that “the Tramway Company and City Council have always endeavoured to favour the long-distance travellers ” and he quoted figures to prove bis contention correct. He omitted to quote Point Chevalier, which he and the management have repeatedly stated they treat as a tram district, with tram fares. When the present scale of charges was put in force, bills with sections and fares similar to those put in trams were posted up in Point Chevalier buses, and tram concession cards are used in the buses. The distance of Point Chevalier bus route from Surrey Crescent to the beach is approximately three miles. To enable a comparison to be made, I will give his quotation of Mount Albert distance —4.49 miles; cash l.lld a mile, concession .53d a mile; Point Chevalier from Surrey Crescent to beach dis-’

tance approximately three miles; cash 1.66 d, a mile, concession 1.25 d a mile. This route was originally divided into two sections, but when the system of penny fares, with shorter sections, was introduced, these were made into four sections. When the council reverted to the old of sections. Point Chevalier was most unfairly treated by being left at four sections from Surrey Crescent to the beach. Further than that, the fare is now fivepence for those four sections, so that fares have been increased by a penny. From Surrey Crescent to town was threepence under the shorter sections, with penny fares, and under the present system it is still threepence. It is therefore absolutely incorrect to state that the long-distance travellers of Poin Chevalier are favoured. This is a \'ery profitable bus route, and the Royal Commission reported that it supported the evidence brought before it—that under the present system of tickets the management could not say the Point Chevalier buses do not pav. E. M. E. SINGLETON. Point Chevalier.

SAFEGUARDED INDUSTRIES

Sir, — Writing on the above, recently concluded a letter with the statement that ‘while the Tories have been ‘safeguarding,’ the army of unemployed has steadily grown. It is now over a quarter of a million more than a year ago.” Recently Sir Henry Page-Croft, M.P., chairman of the Empire Industries Association, stated: (1) ‘‘Over 250,000 additional hands have been added to the British industrial army since 1925 in industries which have been safeguarded”; (2) “In not one single case has the price risen, whilst in the majority there have been notable decreases”; (3) “Exports as a whole have increased, especially in safeguarded industries”; (4) “Increased the factories, and improvement in "the quality of the products, have been most marked”; (5) “Some 50 foreign industries have come to Great Britain to get inside the duties, and are now employing British workers”; (6) “It has increased the revenue, the safeguarding incidence having added £12,000,000 to the revenue from the pockets of the fools who still persist in buying foreign-made goods.” It will take a lot of theorising or vain repetition of worn-out shibboleths to upset such outstanding testimony to the €?fficacy of safeguarding. The federated textile workers’ unions recently joined with the employers in a united application for safeguarding. Does “C.H.N.” include all these with “the old Tory Party of Britain”? PERCY ANDREW.

THE DEVONPORT GANGWAY

Sir.— Permit me space in your valuable paper to support “Fed Up” on the above subject. Taking advantage of these hot days. I frequently run across of facilities offered by this delightful suburb in bathing at the little beach adjacent to the wharf.

When the tide answers. 1 can be back at my office inside an hour and a-half, and my swim and trip on the harbour costs file only ninepence—by the way, necessity is the mother of invention. I have discovered this procedure after being driven from the municipal taths for the reasons already stated in your paper. How tantalising it is, therefore, to be inconvenienced by this gangway nuisance? Even if I am only on pleasure bent, my time is limited. The whole contraption is antiquated. The crowd naturally surges forward to the gangway, standing like sheep in a pen waiting on whistle signals, and the captain lias to worm his way through the crowd that he may heave chains to one side and lower the gangway (more noise and fuss than going through the Panama Canal). During this delay, one cannot help comparing the convenience offered to passengfrs on the vehicular ferry, and instinctively asks, “Why does the Ferry Company not offer similar facility to pedestrians?” Why do the people over there not demand this? Why does the company itself not see the advantage of quick embarkation and discharge of passengers, and copy the procedure at San Francisco or Layerpool? In spite of Devon port’s development, and the money spent on the new wharf, also the increase in numbers o the travelling public, this prehiston gangway idea has only been wiaeneu to the extent of some inches. ALSO FED UP-