Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 658, 9 May 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say —

A FOOTPATH INCIDENT bl lt may interest patrons of the recent anti-evolution meeting to know of the behaviour of one of the officials connected therewith. It appears that the Rationalist Association had engaged a youth to distribute free leaflets on the street outside the Town Hall, which, of course, it was legally entitled to do. The official mentioned —evidently under the impression that the person who hires a hall also hires the street outside and has jurisdiction thereover—had the effrontery to interfere with the actions of the youth and to assert that he would be handed oyer to the police unless he ceased his distribution and went home. Such highhanded interference with the liberty of the individual calls for strong protest. LIBERTY. OLD NEWSPAPERS Sir, — . . . I noticed in last evening s Sun an account from England of the finding of old newspapers reporting the coming of the Armada, the Fire of London, and other historic happenings. They were said to be worth thousands of pounds. It may interest your readers to know that about 18 months ago I found a similar bundle of old newspapers in the innocent possession of a farm worker in an isolated South Island township. They included the “English Mercurie” (not “Mercury,” as last evening’s account had it), reporting the defeat of the Armada, the report of the Fire of London, the death of Oliver Cromwell and others. After establishing, the genuineness of these papers, I arranged for the lad to forward them to a proper English market. Incidentally, 1 have every reason to believe that their value is not particularly high. BROWSER. WHO SHOULD DECIDE? Sir. — May I call attention to the Transport Board’s circulars (which cost us £1,000). The point emphasised is that t.he ratepayers never paid a penny towards the cost or upkeep of the trams. Yet it is they who decide whether the system shall be extended. This is against all democratic principles. Those who pay should decide any matter. The ratepayers comprise the wealthier section of the population who own land. And it is they who are benefited by the trams, which add hugely to the value of land. So, too, would the buses, but to a lesser degree. A large number of these ratepayers have motor-cars and never use the trams or buses. Yet it is these folk who are to decide.

Who should pay? If ratepayers footed the bill it would be reasonable to leave the matter to them. But every penny comes out of the pockets of working men and ■.women (and often of boys and girls).

(To the Editor.)

Why should the workers be expected not only to provide public transport, but also maintain a third of the road surface for the ratepayers’ motor-cars. The State places most of its burdens on the backs of the working class in the shape of Customs. If all that a married man pays indirectly were to be paid in a lump sum each year, we would soon have the laws altered, for there would be a public outcry at once. But a sixpence here and a shilling there every day all the time is not noticed. How long are our laws to be made by the wealthy for their own advantage. Any newspaper that will open the eyes of the people to this injustice will be doing a public service which would soon be recognised. E. S. DUKES. Upper Symonds St.

THE OPPONENTS OF EVOLUTION Sir, If Dr. W. H. Pettit’s address at the Town Hall on Tuesday represents the weightiest that our anti-evolutionists can produce, then our scientists who endorse the theory, almost to a man, have no reason to revise their attitude. The doctor knows how to raise a laugh, but the burlesque method, of treating a scientific theory, such as his reference to the inability of Kingsford Smith to grow wings and similar witticisms, while, amusing to an audience which was almost entirely ignorant of the scientific ramifications of evolution, is not argument. Now Dr. Pettit definitely stated that it is a lie to say that birds evolved from reptilian types, and that there are absolutely no intermediate types either fossil or living. Passing over the reckless imputation of dishonesty directed at a long line of distinguished biologists and palaeontologists, allow me to indicate some links that bridge the chasm between birds and reptiles. First it must be understood that the internal structure and embryonic development of both are allied in a remarkable manner. Professor Huxley stated that birds are animals so similar to reptiles in all the most essential features of their organisations that they may be said to be merelv an extremely modified and aberrant "reptilian type. Let me introduce the Pterodactyls. These creatures had a membranous expansion attached to the outer digit of the forelimb for the purpose of flight. Their elongated jaws were filled with simple pointed teeth. They had, however, some remarkable resemblances to birds, particularly in the formation, arrangement and development of certain bones. Next there is the archaeopteryx. This animal had wings for flight and feathers, but a jaw furnished with teeth. As in reptiles the bones of the pelvis remained distinct throughout life, and the tail consisted of long tapering vertebrae, again a reptilian and not an ornithic characteristic. In the forearm »\ere three separate digits ter min-

ated with a claw. My final witness is Hesperornis, a bird which had a jawprovided with series of pointed teeth sunk, in a continuous groove, but in this case the cervical and dorsal regions conform to the true bird type. A closely allied species was similar in all vital details, but had no teeth, and was therefore on all fours with existing species of birds. "When Dr. Pettit says there is no evidence to connect birds in a line of descent from reptiles he is merely blinking the facts. A.E.C.