Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1078, 16 September 1930, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

THE WORLD SHORTAGE OF GOLD LABOUR PARTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT BILL—DEAN INGE IS NO LONGER “GLOOMY!” —-BRITAIN WILL CONQUER TRADE DEPRESSION.

THE RIGHT TO WORK Sir, — Your comment that to call in Sir Otto Niemeyer is like calling in the bailiff from a neighbouring State is quite sound. The economic affliction of the world is a shortage of gold and if we are going to continue with no other standard of currency things must get worse. And as every year Parliament and local bodies are making the effort for existence harder by raising ever-high standards to give anyone the right to work, our troubles must increase in proportion. In New Zealand we require the abolition of all those : petty trade associations that exist for the sole purpose of preventing as many as possible from learning skilled trades. The right to engage in any craft should depend solely upon the ability of a candidate to pass a practical examination. HAROLD SCHMIDT. MATRIMONIAL PROBLEMS Sir, — That was a good symposium (if that is what you call them) published in The Sun recently on the subject of Dean Inge’s views on marriage and divorce. I think that the recent knighthood conferred on the very reverend gentleman must have induced him to gloomy thoughts and turn to light humour. As I see it, DO per cent, of marriages are made with the serious determination to make them “for all time.” But it is not until after marriage that a man and woman realise whether such a contract is possible of fulfilment. If it is utterly impossible, it is only reasonable that a separation of some kind be effected. The “spiritual unions” the Dean mentions would not be proof against any contretemps of this nature. As for the contracts lightly entered into, and lightly regarded, what would happen to the unfortunate offspring of such unions? Would the children he a gift to the State? No. sir, the Dean may have started an interesting controversy (and for that we may be grateful), but ho has not offered us anything constructive toward the salving of the good ship Matrimony on her many “runs aground ” LEMON LABOUR’S GESTURE Sir.—• From superficial reports of the incident in the House of Representatives early on Wednesday morning, when the Leader of the Labour Party moved the recommittal of the Unemployment Bill, it might appear that the Labour Party was doing its job nobly for the country. I Mr. H. E. Holland moved to have the

Bill sent back to the committee, know- ; ing that if motion were agreed to I there would be no possible chance of i getting it back through the House this j session in an amended form. When ! there appeared a possibility of sufli- j cient Reform members supporting him. the Labour leader became panicky and i his lieutenant indicated that the party 1 would support the Bill as a whole — j flat levy included. This showed the ‘ Labour motion to be nothing but a theatrical gesture and not a genuine expression of principle against a measure it considered to be wrong. This observation is interesting, because it proves that the Labour Party, whatever it may think about the merits of the legislation before Parliament, will take any steps to save the Government from embarrassment. To have been consistent Labour members would have to have voted against the third reading of the Bill. Then, and only then, could they have faced the workers with a clear conscience on this subject. As a worker I arh fed up. I like consistency. WORKER. BOYCOTT BLUDGEON Sir,— “Onlooker” may bq able to explain why it is that the U.S.A. is so persistently building a big navy, and is so intent of naval, commercial, and sea supremacy; and so negative your correspondent’s views as expressed in the article “Boycott Bludgeon.” It was to any observer a true relation of facts, and should be pondered over by all. They are not new views, for wo have had similar ones expressed lately in the Press generally. he, as others do, see the same attitude now assumed by America as was taken by Germany before 1914? To pursue the matter farther: Is tlieir friendship genuine, or a matter of business? In 1914 we bad our lesson on friendship. We were very trusting, but don t let us fall for it again. “Onlooker” writes lightly of the lost opportunities of British interests after the war. He says: “There was plenty of capital.” This statement is not correct, but it would have been so bad Britain neglected her war obligations, in common with other nations. Business in all trades was crippled by the lack of capital. Business was then, and is now, fighting an uphill fight against protected markets, impossible taxation, and the big handicap placed upon industry during 1914-18. But sho will—for we know our history and her spirit—win through; ancl no nation yet saddled itself with responsibilities and handicaps without coming through them the better. “Onlooker’s” faint Praise would have been better left unsaid. DANGER.