Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 724, 25 July 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the

Editor.)

MOSQUITOES AND DUMPS

Sir, — For the last two years Hr. Bavid Graham has been giving us repeated warnings of the mosquito’s multiplying propensities and its egg-laying capacity. Instances have been given, together with photographs of the mosquitoes’ breeding grounds. According to the many “Letters to the Editor” I have seen in varions papers, each and every one testifies to the good work done by this officer. To me he appears to be the right man in the right place. But there is one point that has always puzzled me, and this has become more puzzling to me since Whangarei has had a clean-up of all mos-quito-breeding places, and that is, Why has Hr. Graham not been able to clean up, also, Auckland city and I suburbs of breeding places for mos- ! quitoes? One would think that his j! activities would be centred on the j ! more densely populated city of Auckland. I have no wish to quarrel with this officer, but I just wonder why. GEORGE STREET VICTIM. MOSES OR DARWIN Sir,— The medico who entertained the Rotary Club yesterday with a diatribe against Evolution provided a certain amount of entertainment which doubtless reacted favourably on the digestions of the lunchers. Possibly the speaker regarded it as a matter of some importance that any impression Professor Sperrin-Johnson made on susceptible Rotarians should be speedily effaced. To me, it seems a matter of small consequence whether the Rotarians accept Moses or Harwin. Thanks to the spread of knowledge which pioneer scientists died to disseminate, one is no longer burned in the market place for refusing to subscribe to the views of Moses and his disciple Hr. Pettit, on the subject of creation. Present-day scientists will lose no sleep should the Rotarians decide that Harwin is beyond their comprehension. But in the interests of truth and light, it should be pointed out that the evolutionary hypothesis is put forward as a feasible explanation of the origin of the human race and not as a religious dogma. If it makes no appeal to such intelligence as the man in the street possesses he has no need to accept it. The feelings of the scientist will not be hurt. He will go on quietly piecing together in support of the theory such evidence as his faculties will permit him to collect, leaving the religionist undisturbed in his simple beliefs. The difference between Hr. Pettit and the Professor is this: The latter puts forward the results of scientific inquiry and research for public information; the former is a crusader for religion. He demands that we swallow, bait, hook and sinker, a crude theology of Hebraic origin, which postulates the existence of a Heity, invested with miraculous powers of creation at will. He makes this the corner I stone of religious belief, and to reject^

it is to risk eternal damnation. Such intolerance and bigotry surely belong to tin© 15th century rather than the 20th. H.E.P.

DEVONPORT REFUSE REMOVAL

Sir, Being compelled to pay a refuse removal rate of 15s a year, I wou d like the Hevonport Borough Council to explain why it charges me 10s for taking away a benzine tin. which someone placed in my right-of-way, and in which I had placed some dirty papers that had blown into my yard from the street. Bearing in mind the fact that refuse collection is essential in maintaining the health of the community, why are all these ridiculous regulations, such as regulation tins, insisted upon".' The council should do its best to encourage the removal of rubbish, not discourage it. Must we dig holes in the garden and bury our surplus rubbish for rats to breed in? It is really no wonder that Hevonport is alive: with these rodents. Also, the council men eollec; only once in eight days. Hoes the council consider that rubbish decaying in warm weather in a closed tin makes for a sanitary system? In Auckland City there are no restrictions as to how much rubbish should be put out. There they take all there is and are glad to help in keeping the City clean, and their sanitary inspectors are most obliging. I think it would be much wiser if the council, instead of spending so much, money on playgrounds and parks, spent a little, more on refuse removal and upon some of its disgraceful streets. RATEPAYER. SOLDIERS’ LANGUAGE Sir. The thanks of all soldiers, both of the old brigade and the new, are due to your correspondent “Faugh-a-Ballagh” for his spirited defence against the dastardly libels which haye recently appeared in the Press regarding their modes of expressing themselves. As an old soldier, a very old soldier, I can heartily endorse all that he says: how well I remember my first military misdemeanour, when our dear old sergeant-major found me on parade with a dirty bow and arrow (that gives you some of the service X have behind me): Calling me gently aside the kindly old fellow, his voice shaking with emotion, told me in a few wellchosen words how grave was my offence, and when he saw the hot tears starting to my eyes with shame he gave the command “about turn” to the platoon in order that I should not be disgraced before my comrades. Ah! sir, those were the days—when a kind word in season could do more than a string of sizzling oaths to bring a man to a sense of his responsibilities. I never knew our dear old sergeantmajor to say more than “Tut tut” or “That will never do, lads,” however much he was put out. One night, he caught us playing ludo for walniits by (Continued in next column.)

candle-light after “lights out,” and after he had said his say there wasn’t a man in the tent with dry eyes. Among the rank and file the force of his splendid example was most noticeable. I recollect seeing a penniless private sneak a lance-corporal’s lemonade once and far from being annoyed the gallant non-com. bought the poor fellow a whole bottle for himself. As for being coarse or filthy, I agree with “Faugh-a-Ballagh” that in those splendid days such things were unthinkable. Possibly the effect of tie late war may have been somewhat demoralising: though very old I was able to get there by cutting off ior beard and understating my age, and I can honestly say that during the whole period I only once heard what I could call bad language and then it was nothing worse than “damn”: the provocation was very great, strawberry-and-apple again: but then owing to advancing years I had begun to get a trifle deaf so I couldn’t really speak with authority. I am old and feebje now, but I shall ever raise what little voice I have left to defend our gallant lads against these wicked and scurrilous attacks. ARQUEBUSIER. THE EVOLUTION OF MAN Sir, — You were kind enough to give me space to protest against the misuse of the word Evolutioh in a previous letter. Evolution—i.e., unfolding of man—starts at his birth, and I contend that the controversy has really been concerning the origin, descent, or production of man’s physical body. The ego being the real man, this misuse of the term Evolution leads many to ignore the facts of life and because anatomists cannot discover the ego upon the dissecting table, they assume that it does not exist. I have an equal right to assume that it does exist, but prefer to deal in facts axd not assumption. Physiologists tell us that the body is changed completely in seven years, yet conscious memory continues for over 70 years, provided that the body is not injured or exhausted. Scientific research has not yet discovered -what life is—yet life and personality are indisoluble in man and beast and the life germ builds true to its kind in the animal and vegetable worlds. Although transmutation of species may possibly occur, the life germ carries with it consciousness and personality. Change of environment does not always destroy this consciousness unless it be of such a nature as to destroy the body that life animates. The fact that environment impinges upon this recording factor does not disprove its real existence, for evidence favours the view that environment is frequently moulded by the ego. Hence Mr. Herber Spencer’s term “correspondence with environment” is inadequate to the circumstances. A more appropriate term would be control and adaptation of environment, whether by man or animal. The late Professor Hy. Drummond asserted that all the arguments used regarding the faculties of man could be used equally well for the animal, but we have no more evidence that life is obliterated when the body dies than we have that electrical force is destroyed when the contact is cut. It does not necessarily follow that life and personal immortality are identical, but this is outside the scope of this letter. If some of your psychological readers have a full and complete explanation of tlu* phenomena of motion, intellect and will, I shall be pleased to receive instruction. AN ARM-CHAIR DABBLER, j