CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 November 1915, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

QUEEN CARNIVALS. To the Editor. Sir.—ln your issue of yesterday you publish what you termed "a striking condemnation" of certain features of queen carnivals, delivered from the pulpit of St. Mary's Church, oil Sunday night by the Rev. A. H, Colvile, but. had you termed it an "unmanly" condemnation, you would have been nearer the mark. For it was unmanly. Mr. Colvile's remarks, as reported in your paper, can only be regarded by broadminded people as degrading to himself and a desecration to the pulpit he occupies. Mr. Colvile has, 1 understand, recently been to Auckland —to attend Synod, and, one presumes, incidentally to have a holiday, or rest, from his arduous labours. Result: he comes back overburdened with feeling against something he saw in Auckland and which did not meet with his approval. In speaking as he did 011 Sunday night, Mr. Colvile not only cast a slur on the fair fame of Auckland women, he cast a stigma on eighty per cent, of the women of New Zealand —on our mothers, our wives, and our sisters who are helping far more—very, very far more—than Mr. Colvile and his cothinkers are doing to alleviate the suffering that is arising from the war. That there are some objectionable features attached to queen carnivals, etc., I am willing to admit, but Mr. Colvile will surely not deny that there arc also objectionable features attached to Sunday-school re-unions and similar functions. His statement that the parsons' protest against raffles, etc., in connection with the Auckland carnival were almost contemptuously disregarded can be dismissed in the same vein. The carnival committee fully discussed the matter, vide Auckland papers, which Mr. Colvile may think are not read by members of his congregation. He had intuition enough to use the word "almost." Did Mr. Colvile go into public bara while holiday-making in Auckland to see "decent, well-brought up young girls . . . .lay aside natural modesty, to appeal to what is worst and . ndt what is best in men; to make themselves cheap?" I don't believe he did, and I don't believe the girls of Auckland do it. If they do, Auckland must be a wicked place, and Mr. Colvile should never go there again, except as a worker to save ; the fallen! Did Mr. Colvile hear "daughters' or sisters' names being bandied about in the mouths of betting men in public bars, made the subject of coarse jests and rude comparisons, figuring in sweepstakes and in many other ways held lightly and cheaply?" What an insult to those hard-working Auckland ladies who have been nominated as queens! What an insult to the hundreds of others who are working and have worked nobly for the cause! Because Mr. Colvile, like many of his own kidney, does not approve of raffles or art unions, he damns the womanhood of the colony. Will Mr. Colvile tell us how to raise the necessary money? He knows perfectly we'll that the churches won't do it, and that it is by catching the stray shilling or half-crown that our boys will be most helped. Collection plates won't do it. The exuberant spirits of perhaps a few flighty-minded young women in Auckland did not justify the preacher in New Plymouth's noblest church ranting theatrically. If Mr. Colvile wanted to get "raffles" oft his chest, why did he not do so during the recent raffle for a motor-car in New Plymouth? IHe dared not. He dared not say anything about that in the manner in which he spoke on Sunday night of Auckland's women. ''Thank God, I am not as other men!" Mr. Colvile, perhaps, will appreciate the quotation.—l am, etc., CIVIS. Nov. 9, 1915. GOOD OLD RUM. To the Editor. Sir,—l don't like the idea of butting into a newspaper controversy between two well-informed and apparently serious, earnest men, but will you allow me a little space to refer to the controversy now raging in your columns between Messrs. Maunder and Wright? Both these men are worthy citizens, each striving for what he believes to be the truth. Personally, I favor Mr. Maunder's contentions, for without doubt the great bulk of the medical faculty condemn alcoholia beverages of all kinds. King George, Lord Kitchener, Lloyd George, and, indeed, the majority of British leaders, have openly urged soldiers to abstain absolutely from strong drink during the progress of this awful war. Lloyd George has stated publicly that strong drink is a greater enemy to Britain than Germany. Of course, a stupid, ignorant man like Lloyd George does not know as much about the good qualities of grog as does Mr. Wright, of Rahotu. Medical men like Treves and Horsely are mere nobodys compared with the Mayor of Rahotu. Nansen and Scott, the great explorers, are absolutely mugs compared to the Rahotu champion of alcoholic slush. Oh, dear yes! According to the Ruin Champion of Rahotu all you have to do, if you desire to train a soldier, is to fill him up with firewater! Nothing like rum for completing the fitness of a soldier! Good thing, rum! Fill 'em up again! Rum is a fine thing to keep a man firm on his pins. When he's cold it makes him warm, when he's hot it make? him cold. It makes a man cool and cautious in times of stress and danger. The man who does not imbibe alcohol of some sort is a poor, maudlin creature. At least, this is Mr. Wright's opinion. Friend Wright, you have a lot to learn yet, or perhaps I should say, a lot to unlearn.—l am, etc., MEDICAL.

THE BRITISH PREMIERSHIP. To the Editor. Sir, —It will doubtless astonish you and lots of other editors to be told that in your whole-hearted championship of the present British Government's conduet of the war, you misrepresent the feeling of hosts of New Zealanders. Mr. Aequith is undoubtedly an able exponent of the idiotic and degrading game of party politics and was a very able barrister. But lie has one disability for being head man in the British Empire at such a tme as this, und it is a fatal one. The man is severity years of age. Consequently, he is slow, timid, hesitating, where lie should be quick, confident and decisive. Imagine any firm in any sort of business in any country at a time when they had to meet specially heavy competition placing and retaining a man of seventy in the principal position! Wouldn't they be mad and courting disaster? Of course, and the British people in their hour of stress are just as mad to retain a man with one foot in the grave at the helm. Why, a civil servant doing routine work, precisely the same from year's end to year's end, has to retire at sixty-five. Truly, the British people are "mostly fools."—I am etc., S. A. GILLMAN. New Plymouth, Nov.