Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 634, 10 April 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say—

(To the Editor.)

THE MAYORALTY Sir, I read with great interest in this evening’s issue of The Sun a letter from Mr. H. P. Taylor, commenting on Mr. Blood worth’s reply to Mr. Taylor’s questions contained in a previous letter, and I think that electors will agree that Mr. Bloodworth should publicly dissociate himself from that body known as the Communist Party of New Zealand, and refrain from acting as chairman at any meetings held under the auspices of the Communist Party. Mr. LI. E. Vaile seems to tower above all the candidates offering their services for the chief magistrate’s position. Auckland-born, though widely-trav-elled, Mr. Vaile is one of this city’s most successful business men—with a good knowledge of finance. Epsom’s representative will no doubt prove a worthy successor to her former representative, Sir James Gunson. ADVANCE AUCKLAND. 9.4.29. CHEMIST’S COMPLAINT Sir,— I spring to the defence of the Rev. Jasper Calder, who has been attacked by “Worker” for “attempting to make medicine free.” It is obvious that “Worker” has rushed into print without pausing to consider the position; for any thoughtful person cannot but realise that the distribution of needful medicines to those who could not afford to obtain them through ordinary retail trade channels oould not possibly affect the business of Auckland chemists one iota. “Worker’s” argument about “carrying the idea to its logical conclusion” is manifestly absurd, simply because no relief is given in cases where people are able to secure various necessaries for themselves. The proper outlook is this; The more people helped to regain their footing in the community the better for "Worker,” as they will ultimately swell the ranks of those who shop at his store. UNSELFISH. FUTILITY OF WAR Sir, — One statement of “Shoulder Arms” demands instant rebuttal. He imagines Britain conquered: “The conqueror seizes her wealth and takes over her government.” Now, sir, this would be impossible for economic reasons. Says Norman Angell (whose editorial comment in “Foreign Affairs” The Sun has more than once quoted in its leaders): “No nation can in our day by military occupation reap any benefits to itself. It cannot confiscate the wealth of the occupied land, for by so doing it would destroy that confidence upon which credit is founded—and the modern world depends on credit. Even small confiscations would lead to financial and industrial chaos, thus making the conquered State not an asset but an exhausting liability. Neither could the conqueror tax the conquered more than would be necessary for the upkeep of the latter’s own government. For once it exceeded this amount and began to transfer taxes to its own coffers, it would have placed the

handicap of taxation without returns upon the trade of its victim. A country’s wealth depends on its trade. Once that slackens its wealth —and thereby its capacity to bear taxation—also decreases. Occupation to-day brings many disadvantages but no gains.” Events since 1918 have fully borne out this contention. Why were not the territories of the Central Powers then portioned out among the Allies? It was not magnanimity that prevented this happening, but sheer impossibility. How could Britain—for instance—have taken the responsibilities of governing Germany off the Germans’ shoulders, when she needed more than all her abilities and resources to govern herself? As it was we were foolish enough to try to “make Germany pay” with the result that we have stimulated her prosperity at the expense of Britain’s own. And that for reparations payments which are after all infinitesimal as International finance goes! No, Mr. “Shoulder Arms.” we need to look at the world as it actually is. The “preparedness” that is necessary to-day is preparedness to meet other peoples without imputing to them worse motives than we ourselves act by. And if they are not prepared to believo that our intentions are quite pacific, who can blame them when they know that Britain alone spends 15s in every pound of revenue on warlike preparations? Llow are they to know that they are “defensive purely”? Some nation has got to take the next step in this disarming business. National position and national honour demand it should be us. A.M.R. ABOUT THIS AND THAT Sir.— According to a report in yesterday’s Sun, Mr. W. H. Murray attacked our councillors during an address at Remuera on Monday night It was most unkind of him to say that some of our city fathers did not possess th ® mentality of fourth-standard schoolboys. Or, perhaps, it may have been unkind to the sehoolbovs. As to the aspersion cast by Mr. Murray on the fish markets, it is no use trying to tear the scales from our eyes We must pay for our little amusements and we do not complain. I refer Air Murray to the great work done by the' present council under the iron hand of Mr. George Baildon. This council of ours has done lots of things. I haven’t time to enumerate them bur anyway. Air. Baildon will tell ’ at> Mr r ßsi,do a b OUti ,V ° ne thing about Mr. Baildon, he will stand no nonsense, as was said at one of his meetings I can see what the trouble is. Mr. Murray is jealous of all the good work done by our present Mayor" __ BLURB. ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS Sir,— “A body of American scouts if numerous enough, could probablv’ so down and wipe up Mexico in sho*rt ?n Wr ° te an American paperm 191 = . A most insulting and war provoking statement. The U.S boons which were subsequently sent m Mexico fared disastrously. And in (Continued in next column)