Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 772, 19 September 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say —

(To the Editor.)

OVERCROWDED?

Sir, — The manner in which the safety provisions in certain public halls are shattered, apparently without any regard whatever for the possibility of fire or stampede, seems to call for immediate and strong comment. I refer to the Town Hall, Auckland, where, according to the edict of the City Council, there shall not be allowed any person standing on the occasion of a public function there, provided every seat in the hall is filled. In the case of concerts staged in the big hall this regulation has been strictly enforced. But when a wrestling bout is staged, there appears to be no limit at all to the number of people packed into the building. On Monday evening last the passage-ways and steps in the Town Hall were chock-full of people. They were standing around the walls and sitting on the floor. FAIR-GO. WHEN IN CUBA . . . Sir,— I read in The Sun that, in Vancouver, a man had killed his w r ife and his two children; that the Chief of Paris records had been shot, after having been accused of dishonesty by his murderer, and that in New Zealand a madman had attacked with spurs, and without reason, an elderly settler. Do you not think, sir, that there are nowadays too many madmen on earth —due possibly to the war—and that the time has come for the wary man to carry a revolver in his hip-pocket, as do the Cubans and Central Americans? There is a proverb which says: It is better to kill the Devil than to be killed by him. NEW LAW. Our correspondent asks for our opinion. It is "No.” There are comparatively few crimes of violence in New Zealand, and there would probably be more if every second citizen carried a revolver “on the hip.’’—Ed. The Sun. HIGH INTEREST RATES Sir,— Professor H. Belshaw, according to newspaper reports, referring at a Rotary luncheon to the large increase in local body expenditure, said that it was a difficult task to outline the effects on the community. One of the effects is that the system followed, by paying unduly high rates of interest for loans on municipal security, induces some of the most capable men in the community to steer clear of investment in reproductive work and to invest capital in those safe securities, and this load of big interest is unjustly balanced by those who direct the municipal affairs by long terms of invest-

ment at peak rates of interest without provision for adjustment when interest rates become reasonably lower. If a jockey were to be offered a high fee, win or lose, no effort in the straight might be the result. The high, unalterable rate of interest places the keen and progressive man of affairs, who has been attracted by such investment, in the same position as the jockey mentioned. Those keen minds which otherwise might join in the battle to have these affairs adjusted are drawing big and certain returns from the lands and homes of “the battling throng.” L.M. LOOK WHERE YOU ARE GOING! Sir, — On© of the most colossal pieces of rural presumption that has ever come under my notice was the letter to your paper yesterday, signed by “Te Kuiti,” who came very close to making a widow of his wife simply by not looking where he was going. “Te KuiM” suggests that motor-cars and vehicular traffic should stop at safety zones while tramcars are stationary there. Alas, sir, he simply does not understand. But if he were to think calmly for a moment and contemplate the disorder and dislocation of traffic in the busy parts of the street In such circumstances, he must readily recognise the fallacy of his extraordinary request. For what purpose were the safetyzones installed? Obviously for the purpose of protecting the people from traffic dangers, and at the same time preventing traffic stoppages and congestion. And for what purpose were men given their eyes? The answer is equally obvious—to look where they are going. My advice to “Te Kuiti” is: Stay in the country! PROGRESS WITH SAFETY. EXPENDITURE ON DEFENCE Sir,— I, for one, hasten to answer the question asked by your leader writer yesterday. In what way does New Zealand dishonour her promise given over the signature of the League of Nations? When New Zealand affixed her seal to the Covenant of the League of Nations shortly after the end of “the war to end war,” she solemnly vowed to “reduce all armaments to a point consistent with national safety.” Throughout the world today there is not one, but a dozen, States which ore closely surrounded by antagonistic neighbours, but which yearly spend on armaments a lower per capita amount than we do. New Zealand is right j away out in an odd corner of the j world; her nearest neighbours over

1,000 miles away, and then of our own race. The nearest possible rival is over 7,000 miles away, yet we continue the petty brandishing of tin swords. For a little country like ours to spend over £1,000,000 per annum on armaments in this enlightened age, ana try to say that it is consistent with national safety, is merely treating the covenant of the League of Nations like another “scrap of paper.” L. R. WINGFIELD. DISFIGURING THE MUSEUM Sir.— . I noticed, with some astonishment* in your paper recently. that Mr. Archey, curator of the Museum, asked the City Council where two four-inch naval guns should be placed, and it was suggested to him that they be placed in front of the building. Designed on artistic lines, and set in beautiful surroundings, the building ** a credit to the city. And now the council proposes to litter up its imposing front with pieces of obsolete scrap iron. Surely from a body with a collective mind that cannot rise above mid-Victorian jingoism we can next expect a nest of machine-guns, surrounded by barbed-wire, in the Art Gallery. I would offer as a suggestion to Mr. Archey that the guns be placed along with the machine-guns and other implements of destruction that have been thrown behind the conveniences near the rotunda. This, I consider, is an excellent place for them. For the benefit of the patriotic* profiteers who may feel constrained to take up an indignant pen in reply. I might state that I am neither an antimilitarist nor a Socialist, but a plain, ordinary, everyday sort of citizen with some slight appreciation of things beautiful. ANTI -SCRAP.