Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 624, 28 March 1929, Page 10

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

PLANTATION FIRE Sir,-*- . There appears only one thing to be said about the careless destruction on Tuesday of the fine plantation of pines within the Waikumete reserve. It is further evidence as to the City Council’s incompetence, and final proof that it is not even competent to control a cemetery. VOTE ’EM OUT. SHOULD GIRLS SMOKE? Sir.t — Once again the wowser cry, “Girls Are Smoking!” is raised, this time in your column for correspondents. “Mother of Girls” objects to girls smoking in restaurants, but surely it does not matter whether the habit is indulged in publicly or privately. In the last 10 years smoking has become a pastime for both sexes, so if our girls are going to smoke, let them be honest about it and smoke like men, anywhere and everywhere. Anyhow, one can think of worse vices. TOLERANT, GOOD OLD DAYS Sir,— I noted with amusement in these columns yesterday the remarks of “Mother of Girls,” who is pining for the simplicity of 20 years ago. She thinks it a terrible thing to see girls smoking in an Auckland restaurant and wants to know what the churches are doing about it. 'Would your correspondent, sir, really be gratified if she .could be whisked back a couple of decades or, which would probably suit her better, could apply the simplicity of 20 years ago to life in 1929? “Mother of Girls” though she be, I am quite sure that this well-inten-tioned woman has taken some advantage of common-sense evolution in the life of post-war womanhood. Does she still wear long, sweeping frocks laced ever so tightly at the waist? Does she wear a ridiculous little straw hat riskily secured to a heavy coiffure by two steel barbs? Does she—but then your readers can no doubt review the simplicities of 20 years ago quite as well as I can. Think this over “Mother of Girls,” and be more tolerant of the modern girl, who, though she is far from perfect, is infinitely preferable to the insipid simpering product of 20 years ago. As to smoking in public, I do not altogether approve, though my creed is simple. If the girl really likes a cigarette (and how many do?) let her have it. After all, it is better to indulge in smoking without concealment than to do it behind locked doors with one’s head in the fireplace, and the smoke curling up the chimney as was the custom 20 years ago. OXE OP THE GIRDS. ORIGIN OF THE MAORI Sir, — * As a member of the Maori race, incidentally a Polynesian, I would like to express my views on a letter published in your columns on March 23 bv Mr. George Graham, repudiating the racial analogy drawn between the Maori and the Red Indian. Casting aside the scientific and ethnological aspects of the question for the present, a study of the map of the world would disclose plausible and sound common sense, feasible to the average intelligent person. Mr. Graham asserts that the American Indian is a Mongolian who, in the course of his peregrinations, eventually populated

the American Continent. He also asserts that the Maori is an Aryan originating from North-West India. South Sea Islanders are members of the Polynesian race. To obtain an oceanic environment such as offered by the isles of the Pacific, the Maori would have to cross the Indian Ocean via the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, then in a nor’-westerly direction to the South seas, or by way of Australia and New Zealand—which would be very unlikely—or cross by land eastward, which would be contrary to the roving disposition imbued in the Maori. The migration would be made westward. Geography discloses that the warm Californian current washes the shores of western North America and the Hawaiian Islands. Could not then a portion of the people inhabiting the American continent (I shall call them Maoris, on account of their roving disposition, which impelled them to ieave the large areas of land available for occupation) encounter the Californian current, This would deflect their course westward, to strike the Hawaiian Islands. They would then migrate westward, through the islands of the Pacific, and eventually land in New Zealand. This is common sense and intelligence, and if one were to study more closely and minutely the relationship between the Maori and the American Indian one would not be so apt to jump to conclusions or disprove what is traditionally legendry and scientifically correct. TAWHITIROA. HATES TO WALK Sir. — Mow that we have a Transport Board to look after our tramways system, we should agitate for better service on some routes. I live out at the Dominion Road terminus and work in Upper Queen Street, but I am compelled to get out of the tram in Lower Symonds Street and "walk nearly three blocks to work or travel with the car to Wellesley Street. Now, sir, this is ridiculous. Is there any reason why the Dominion Road cars cannot be run alternative routes—say, down Queen Street one trip and down Lower Symonds Street and Wellesley Street the following trip. Such a scheme would be of immense service to workers in Upper Queen Street. lam sure the progressive bodv of men on the Transport Board will see the commonsense of this suggestion. SORE FEET. SPOILING NATURE’S PLAN Sir, „T ho ,, di S lstrous in the Valley . Ireith, Dunedin, is yet another warning from nature that we in New Zealand are spoiling her plans. There have been several of these warnings at various places down Otago way; also as far afield as Italy, and North Islanders should profit from the lesson even if conservative Scotsmen wili not. A river’s job is to drain the surrounding land by carrying to the sea a continuous supply of fresh water from Its catchment area. If, as in the natural order of things, that catchment area is bush-covered, the rain falling among the trees and shrubs will slow up and trickle slowly and crystalclear into the streams that feed the river. But if mills and unthinking settlers have cleared the catchment area of its native growths, the rain falling on open ground will course Hi next column)

down rapidly*, carrying mud and small stones into the streams, and later the river. This silt debris is washed down and deposited in the bed of the river a: sluggish points, and carrying capacity is rapidly lessened. Then comes a fresh, and the blocked-up river course will not carry the extra load. A flood follows. It is common knowledge that, because of the ruined catchment area, this is one of the ever-accumulating dangers in the River of L#efth, Dunedin. Carelessness has caused the same trouble on the Taieri River, and on other New’ Zealand rivers. In Italy, intensive cutting and clearing in river catchment areas for hundreds of years has well-nigh ruined portions of the country. Similar troubles could arise in various parts of the Auckland Province unless river catchment areas are zealously preserved. WXTCHJER. THE MILITARIST DEFENDED Sir, r When people who hold strong views on questions affecting tlte social order become involved in controversy there is not infrequently a tendency to lose grip on the definition of the subjeet discussed. In consequence, debaters before the editor may often be found to be at cross-purposes. I think that is what has happened to W. E.* Byrt, who objects to “militarism.’* It is what happens to many” another pacifist. Military leaders of the Empire who have tasted war are loudest and most insistent in their denunciation of it. “A man who likes war is either a fool or a madman,” is the attitude of the vast majority who have been through its hell. But these leaders, who almost without exception are Christian gentlemen, are far-seeing enough to realise that, nation differing from nation in temper and ambition, a people unprepared for defensive war must sooner or later succumb. No mar. worthy the name despises a knowledge of how to use his fists, and it is a truth that he who knows most about the game is commonly the least aggressive. Therefore, it should be clear that the gospel of the military leader is not • militarism,” but preparedness. “One does not need to be a Christian to object to militarism,” your correspondent states. Neither is a man required to renounce military training—preparedness for what may be over the horizon —to be a Christian. Militarism —the love of war for war’s sake —all honest men detest. But why is it antiChristian to offer armed resistance when your country is menaced by the despoiler? Would not Mr. Byrt shoot, and shoot quickly, were his own hom® threatened? Widen the analogy and it should be apparent that the military training of our boys is not merely the hobby of blood-lusting sergeantmajors. SHOULDER ARMS.