Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 798, 19 October 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

A DANGER TO PEDESTRIANS

Sir,— I think the moment opportune to express condemnation of the practice of walking racehorses between the footpath and the stone wall at the edge of the Great South Road near Harp of Erin. I have on several occasions observed pedestrians passing on to the road in order to avoid these restive horses, and there is no need to stress the danger of such a course on this road. There are several quiet side streets available over which these animals could travel. SIDE STREET.

THE COOK STATUE

Sir, — Your contributor who attacked some of the statues of Auckland is, I think, quite right. Hut one statue he omitted to mention —the figure of Captain Cook, in Khyber Pass Road. This, I think, is one of the best pieces of work in the Dominion. For those who have had the privilege of examining the statue at close range—and from the back as well as the front —it seems a pity it cannot be placed where all could % so see it. The beautiful proportions, the natural grace of the figure, the delicate relief of both the features and the uniform, are really refreshing after inspecting most of the statues erected as war memorials in our country towns. STONEMASON.

RULES OF DEBATE

Sir.— In reply to “MA..P.,” I am at a loss to see how he could read into my suggested improved method of procedure the word “unconstitutional.'' It must be apparent that all rules guiding any associated body must be constitutional, whether reactionary or progressive. “M.A.P.” contends it would not be just to members if they were not allowed one, or a number, of points-of-order by those who have not yet spoken to the motion. It is just here where “M.A.P.” failed to read my letter correctly. If the present speaker is “shattering the law of fact,” as “M.A.P.’' puts it, why not make a note of it on the notepaper before him and, when "M.A.P.” rises to speak in his turn, shatter the shatterer? Why waste time on needless points-of-order? If

“M.A.P.” agrees with the motion it is all right; if he does not, he can speak against the motion, or move an amendment. “M.A.P.” says that the chairman may, unknowingly, let some re-

mark pass. Maybe the chairman Is all attention, but to get through the business he is showing such tolerance as is beyond the man who has raised the point of order. Your correspondent says that if reasonable freedom is not given to everyone representing the people’s interests, the purpose of the City Council will be defeated. This statement supports my previous letter, where I said that endless points-of-order raised on any speaker will amount to a “gag.” 1 agree that a mayor may have shortcomings as a conductor of a meeting. That is why we must have rules to keep us in check. apparently didn’t notice that point, where a speaker could speak once only to a motion. I should like him to express himself upon it, as well as upon this point: “If, after the mover and seconder have spoken to a motion and there is no amendment moved or no member wishes to speak against it, the question should be put immediately and the meeting proceed to discuss the next item on the agenda paper.” WM. MURDOCH.

BEAUTY IN BACKS

Sir, — - In accepting my challenge with the enthusiastic inconsistency of Indulgent youth, your correspondent “Psyche” has endeavoured to justify the appearance on our beaches of young women half-dressed in backless bathing suits. Whether “Psyche” simply does not understand, or is evading the chief issues, I cannot determine; but it is certain that to justify the brazen conduct of modern youth on the plea of comradeship between the sexes seems to me to be merely conceding the existence of one of the greatest arguments against bare-backed sunbathers.

We see in the Magistrate’s Court and the Supreme Court every day the result of the so-called Platonic comradeship between the sexes. One does not require to become a prude, nor even to possess any prudish tendencies to feel concern at the licence which I-_ ou fh has already taken when convention allowed the moral tone of our dress to relax a little. I would be the last to deny the hygienic value of reasonably short skirts, but when young girls cannot perceive the point at w-hieh decency should compel them to stop, I believe It is time that the authorities stepped in and taught them some of the first essentials of clean living. No shallow excuse of “Psyche” will cloud the real purpose of the, backless , bathing: suit The purpose i« the same as that "which encourages the ; girls to show more and more of their i

shapely limbs every day— a desire to exhibit themselves in fron of men. Nobody would care to s “Psyche” representing a futuristic painting in the ballroom; but if . same decency in dress were presery by -‘Psyche” on the beach as in ballroom, there would be no neea*% exercise the brain about this kn problem. _ n

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS "Annoyed;' —Your letter shown to niinu/cu. j. uui •• r*oDl* those most concerned In y°ur plaint and such incidents will n repeated.—Ed. The Sun. E.R.M. (Taumarunui).—Your letter refers to an article which appeare another newspaper.—Ed., The 5u •