Citizens Say —

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 716, 16 July 1929, Page 10

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Sir — If I remember rightly, on more than one occasion the Hon. T. M. Wilford has expressed publicly his attitude toward those who strive to make their patriotism take in all humanity in place of that prejudice of race that some mistake for a greater thing, in these words “My country, right or wrong.” Ono would hardly expect a Minister of Justice who holds those views to do otherwise than he has done in connection with the conscientious objectors and their supporters in the Presbyterian Church. One cannot help feeling sorry that men of wide vision are not given such portfolios, for by no stretch of imagination can one bp called a statesman who today makes such statements as that quoted above. H.T.W. MILITARY MATTERS Sir. Parents who lost sons in the war must think this “conscientious objection” controversy most regrettable. I, for one, do. If we must keep up an army to be prepared for slaughtering when occasion arises, why not send groups to clear Government land, instead of keeping them in camp doing almost nothing? I would disband our little army and give every man his civilian freedom on this understanding: —that in the event of war being declared and soldiers required, every eligible man should report for drill at once. They could be sufficiently trained in a week, and any man shirking should be liable to be shot. All staff officers would receive a retaining fee. If this suggestion were adopted a great amount of public money would bo saved, or spent to better advantage without serious loss of efficiency. UNCLE JIM. WHOLESOME PRISONS Sir.— It is evident that recent public criticism of our penal system has aroused interest, judging from the letters on this subject in your columns. Notwithstanding the reputation this Dominion Igas enjoyed for being in the lead in social legislation, are we lagging behind other enlightened countries in our methods of prison management and our general treatment of crime? At present our prison communities figure almost entirely on the liability side of our economic balance sheet. We herd all our prisoners together with little discrimination as to their mentality, criminal records, or possible response to reformative treatment. The whole pro-

cess is a vicious circle, as our records show about 60 per cent, of prisoners who return to crime and become a further expense to the country. I understand that in other countries farm colonies are formed for prisoners of both sexes, which utilise their capabilities and quickly become selfsupporting institutions. It requires little imagination to realise the reformative effect, both morally and physically, of work in the open air as compared with occupation inside prison walls. In times of economic stress and financial stringency it is surely desirable that we should welcome any changes that would make for economy of money and effort. Such methods would certainly mean that the more desirable element, especially in our younger and first-offender prisoners, would naturally gravitate back to useful citizenship, while the less amenable and the incorrigible minority if engaged in productive labour would, at any rate, not be such a drag on the social machinery as they are at present. AMY F. CRUMP. TENDERS Sir, It is high time that some investigation was made, on behalf of New Zealanders, and British workers in New Zealand, of the practice of letting contracts to foreigners who can afford to ! undercut a Briton’s fair and reasonable tender. Recently a local body Jet a £4,000 contract in this way, many New Zealand firms being left out in the cold. Tho situation, in some cases, is farcical. Another local body, in calling for tenders recently, specified that certain materials used were to be of British manufacture. Yet they let this contract, but not to a New Zealander. In some cases foreigners are actually adopting names such as Brown, Smith, Jones and so on, in order that their tenders will rouse r.o suspicion among those local bodies which bother to make any attempt to give proper preference to New Zealanders. Where is this going to end? I appeal for justice on behalf of New Zealand workers and employers who are being edged out time and time again by men who, when their “pile” is made, depart for other lands. ALARMED. FERRY RULES Sir.— With your assistance. I would like to make public my emphatic protest against what I consider a stupidity perpetrated by the Ferry Company. I had occasion recently to cross, with my bicycle, from Shore to City. On my

return I was debarred from the 4.30 p.m. ferry and told that the rules prohibited the carrying of cycles after 4 p.m. My copy of the ferry time-table—-issued to me at my request on the morning of the trip (Thursday last) — clearly states: “No bicycles allowed on 4.50 p.m. steamer from Devonport, or 5.10 p.m. from Auckland” —obviously meaning that their carriage at other hours might be taken for granted. On finding a major official and stating my case as here set forth, he was quite unable to dispute my logic, yet refused me the trip for which I bad already paid. He further showed bis intelligence by condescendingly informing me that 1 might take the vehicular ferry. Thus, for the first time, •was my honest old bicycle honoured to my discomfiture. So discomfited still am I. I find myself, quite rationally (and in fiendish joy) considering that unthinkable monstrosity (to the ferried brain) —a big, broad, benevolent Harbour Bridge, publicly built, owned, ruled and regulated. RUMINANT. NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT “Sportsman” (Edendale). —We have communicated your request, by telegram. to the Press Association. —Ed., The Sun.