The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1923

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 761, 6 September 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1923

A SPOONFUL OF SLAUGHTER

MEDICAL scientists apparently find it easier to discover poisons for the wholesale slaughter of soldiers and non-combatants in war than to obtain by research chemical or any other kind of cures for common colds and more destructive maladies in times of peace. A London physiologist, Dr. Leonard Hill, has announced with cheerful confidence the existence of a toxin that could be employed in warfare to kill millions of men. With a prudence which suggests the possibility of the toxin’s use some day, it has been decided to keep it without a name. Researchers are certain in their belief, however, that, if men are as susceptible as guinea-pigs to the toxin, one salt-spoonful of the dry stuff would suffice to slaughter a million men. Such, in one part of the world, is the contrast between the power of the scientific laboratory and that of modern war machinery. Then, in Sydney, this week a congress of medical experts has discussed the prospect of poison-gas proving to he the most potent weapon in future war. And there was friendly, almost sympathetic talk of calling upon the authorities to educate civilians in the properties of the various kinds of gas that were likely to be used, and also of suggesting the establishment of a reserve store of gas-masks. This sort of advice is doubtless useful, but, at the same time of exercising knowledge, the congress, onyhe question of curing cancer or tuberculosis, could only shake its’head in perplexity and hope for beneficial research. It was asserted, however, that if a stammerer were treated early in life and taught the principles of rhythmic speaking the afflicted person need not stutter any more. Against the grim information and expert about lethal poisons for use in the next big war between highly-civilised nations, the representatives of major and minor Powers have gathered together at Geneva in an atmosphere of peaceful intention to discuss the welcome prospect of giving Mars another terrific jolt, though nobody believes that the sturdy god will be slaughtered, not even by one saltspoonful of the nameless toxin. Many benign platitudes have echoed round the world from Geneva, and these suggest that, after ten years of preparation and pleading, the League of Nations may he allowed at last to have a definite influence on the Big-Powers’ movement toward naval disarmament.

There still is wide scope for a further limitation of the number and size of fighting ships. But people would be foolish to accept another measure of naval disarmament as a gitarantee of world peace. It is so easy, while applauding the elimination of, say, a battleship costing £.7,000,000 to build and equip, to overlook the fact that for the same expenditure no fewer than five hundred airplanes could he constructed and maintained. Floating fortresses may p>ass into obsolescence, but an air fleet of five hundred craft, each carrying a saltspoonful of toxin, may not be hailed as a splendid substitute for battleships and cruisers. Every person who is cursed today with a load of war-debt and taxation, really wants to see universal disarmament, but there is no sense in becoming fooled by half-measures or glorious pretences. No nation in the world is more disposed than Great Britain is toward pei’petuating the peace of the world. That cannot he disputed ; yet the British nation, while paying eleven shillings in each pound of national taxation for past wars, still spends £114,600,000 a year on its Army, Navy and Air Force. Of this sum only £19,000,000 is spent on military and civil aviation, representing sevenpence out of every £1 raised in taxation. On the same basis of comparison Great Britain spends a shilling on education and one thirty-second of a penny on the League of Nations. And while all this disproportionate expenditure has being going on, a scientist in a Hampstead laboratory has found or knows all about a toxin which could kill millions of people in a few moments with no larger a dose than the usual dosage of a quack medicine for indigestion. Meanwhile, it is champagne at Geneva.

TUNNEL OR BRIDGE ?

rIE relative merits of a bridge and a tunnel as a means of carrying traffic across the harrier formed by the Auckland Harbour will no doubt he examined by the commission which is shortly to be appointed. Hitherto little attention has been paid to the possibilities of a tunnel, but in the light of information given to the Waitemata Chamber of Commerce by Mr. D. E. Harkness, lecturer in civil engineering at Auckland University, a tunnel as an alternative to a bridge cannot be ruled out from consideration. According to Mr. Harkness a tunnel would be cheaper and would absorb less land for approaches at the terminals. There is the added factor that even the Auckland Harbour Board, which so far has failed to meet the advocates of the bridge with any enthusiasm, could hardly see anything obnoxious about a plan to link the opposite shores with a tunnel instead of a bridge. The Harbour Board has stressed its objections to a bridge leading from Beaumont Street to Shoal Bay, which unquestionably would he the most convenient distributing point for North Shore traffic. If the proposed bridge has to go from Point Erin to Stokes Point at Northcote, or even further up the harbour, the advantages of central distribution of North Shore traffic are to some extent lost. But the considerations which may compel the Harbour Board to insist on regard for future maritime development could hardly affect the selection of a tunnel line. The tunnel could pass beneath the busiest part of the waterfront and yet cause the Harbour Board no concern for the maritime interests. Hence, by tunnelling, say, from Halsey Street, Freeman’s Bay, to Bayswater, every apparent advantage in traffic distribution could be served.

To the general public, a tunnel may not appeal as much as a bridge. Even in the most airy and well-constructed tunnels timid people find a sinister atmosphere, and this is a consideration that cannot be ignored. But, of course, many examples ean be cited of important tunnels which are doing work of immense value in handling streams of traffic. There are eight tunnels under the waterways skirting New York. The Thames tunnels are historic; and near San Francisco the traffic bridge over the Oakland Estuary was demolished and a tunnel substituted. Presumably the Harbour Bridge Association will have an open mind on the matter, and like most others will be content to let the selection of a method rest on expert analysis of the cost and the service that may be rendered. As for the Auckland Harbour Board, which may be charged with having made rather exacting demands in regard to the personnel of the proposed commission, it should be whole-heartedly in favour of an examination of the tunnel scheme. If the board is as apathetic toward the tunnel plan as it has been toward the bridge, the sincerity of its attitude on the whole subject will be questioned.