Citizens Say —

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 630, 5 April 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

RADIUM AND CANCER Sir,— As there is much talk of setting asido a sum of money to purchase radium to be used on cancer treatment, and as many medical men advocato its use. telling us that it will cure cancer, would it not be as well to invite correspondence from sufferers who have been subjected to radium treatment before public money is actually expended in this direction? Scheweninger, a prominent European physician, says that radium treatment is a gigantic swindle. It seems cruel to kill the hopes of those who are depending upon radium to cure cancer; nevertheless, it is not right to give positive assurance of cures when the treatment is largely in the experimental stage, and especially when it is a fact known to medical men that malignant tumours tend to recur within a few years after local extirpation. For this reason it would take several years to prove the efficacy of radium treatment. Without praising or condemning radium, let us have the experiences of those who have been under it. Will radium-treated sufferers—there are probably a few of them in New Zealand—for the sake of their brothers and sisters, let us have their experiences ? DIET FIRST. MUNICIPAL PATRIOTISM * Sir,— The warning against municipal apathy which your correspondent, ' P.D.Q.,” issued yesterday was timely. But it is not enough to castigate the people for not taking an inteliigent interest in their city’s affairs. We must go further and give some suggestion for remedy. True, sir, the people who do not register their names on the municipal roll deserve all that is coming to them when their transport difficulties are not solved, their streets not fixed, and their city assets not used to the greatest advantage. But where is the youth of Auckland? Is it not time that the benign senility which threatens to govern this city till the crack of doom should be replaced by a little of that gogetting spirit which has made greater cities than Auckland ever will be? It is because nobody takes sufficient interest in civic affairs that things are as they are to-day. If the people had exercised their franchise privilege intelligently in past years there, might have been a different municipal record to-day, for the electors would see how their own assets were being used. It is youth’s turn to do something now. The old men have had their turn—and failed. Q. ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS Sir, — I agree with Mr. J. G. Hughes that we are unlikely to go to war with America over rum-runners. But surely

ho does not think rum-running is the root cause of Anglo-American bickerings. Mr. R. J. Campbell, an English clergyman recently returned from a tour of the United States, has not minced matters when speaking of Anglo-American relations. Nor is he alone in this respect; for other travellers (also statesmen and journalists) have expressed concern on the same subject. Yet Mr. Hughes, marooned in the basement of the world, characteristically seeks to dismiss the Rev. Mr. Campbell’s warning as “foolish,” and would class him as a lunatic, all — so far as one may judge by his letter — on the unsupported evidence of his own say-so. The way to remedy the present Anglo-American friction that undoubtedly exists is not along the lines of pretending it is non-existent. But with a growing volume of opinion on both sides of the Atlantic firmly opposed to war, now is the opportune time to face squarely the old and vexatious cause of Anglo-American bickerings. Settle that, and many competent judges say “you settle the lot.” True, the Cassandras who are continually making us sit up and take notice, are troublesome creatures. But the optimists who, shutting their eyes to the breakers ahead, sing out lustily, “All’s well,” are a dangerous lot. N.M.W. MILITARISM CONDEMNED 40 . Sir, — I wish to remove any shadow of doubt from the mind of your- correspondent, “Shoulder Arms,” as to what I refer under the heading of militarism. I include all forms of barbarism from cadet corps to -standing armies, _with air forces and navies thrown in. The trouble which causes “Shoulder Arms” to censure me is that he tries to distinguish between military methods of preparing for a war and methods of preparing for defence. I maintain, sir, that there is no fundamental difference—lt is merely a military euphemism. I quite agree that nations are at loggerheads, but why? Is it not the continual struggle of one to outdo another in strength of armaments? The disarmament scheme may be very effective in many ways, but there is little hope of peace until the last sword is turned into a ploughshare. I contend, sir, that the whole trouble to-day is due to cho fear which is distorting human minds! u ntil we replace fear by love, we shall not get very far. Some nations must take a definite step in this matter, and be prepared to be martyred in the great cause. Further. I still maintain that war under anv conditions is contrary to the spirit of Christ. With regard to our home country, New Zealand I would not take up arms against an invading force, for reasons which would take up too much space at this juncture. I defy your correspondent or any other man to find anv adequate means of defence for New Zealand or for any other country. W. BYRT. NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT Magna Est Veritas—We do not desire to introduce religious questions into me municipal election i&b.-s —EH Th« Sun.