PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19889, 19 May 1936, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not. appear.

ALSATIAN DOGS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —With the Alsatian dog exclusion legislation practically passed by Parliament, and shortly to be the law of the country, it will be well for the Waikato County and Hamilton Borough Councils to turn their attention to the absolute exclusion of these dogs from this part of the country. The legislation will give public bodit* this power. The owners of Alsatians have only themselves to blame for tft« legislation, as the way these dogs are allowed to roam the streets at all hours without supervision, and free to molest anyone or animal at their will, is a challenge to the public to end it permanently, which challenge lias been accepted and the dog is to go. It is evidently not known to the owners of Alsatians that the public detest these dogs and are rightly afraid of them. Being wolves, or their first cousins, what chance has the average person of protecting himself against attack? Alsatians ha\e molested and bitten people, including children, all over the Dominion, killed hundreds of sheep, chased and bitten cattle, and contaminated cattle and sheep dogs with their undesirable blood by inter-breeding with them. The writer is in a particularly good position to know how widespread the Alsatian dog menace is, as he had the opportunity of perusing many of the details which were presented to Parliament during the last two years. —I am, etc., AZTEG. Hamilton, May 18. FORCE AND PURPOSE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —While I am vastly more Interested in removing the economic causes of war than in war itself, I agree with Mr J. Galshore that each of us should see the issues clearly. Yet in all the reports of Anzac Day speeches, in which war was denounced, I noted not a single attempt to enunciate the fundamentals of the subject. In all these questions we must start with the individual, for the State is wholly composed of individuals associated in a common political organisation. Why do individuals form themselves into a State? If we trace the matter hack far enough we find that the State has been formed originally and primarily for the purpose of protection—that is, to protect each individual in the pursuance of his legitimate occasions; which means to Ido as he likes so long as the equal freedom of all others is not violated. The urge for State organisation started with the family, then the tribe, and lastly the nation, in each case to ward off aggression, from without firstly, though the main objective often enough was to make war on those outside a given community. However, as the primary purpose of the formation of a State is to protect its members from aggression, it follows that, when the security of the State is threatened from without, it is the bounden duty of each and every person in the community to resist that aggression by every means in their power. This protective serj vice is performed within the nation by its own police force, and a world police force would be the best possible instrument for keeping the I peace of the world too; but as we have not yet evolved to that rational plane, advocated by the late Lord Allenby (the announcement of whose death appeared in the same issue of tlie Times as Mr Calshore’s letter) we must perforce rely on our present system—and woe betide us if it fails in the almost certain coming test. To resist aggression, then, is the sole justification for the use of force.—l am, etc., T. E. McMILLAN. Matamata, May 16. MR NASH’S MISSION. (To the Editor.) Sir. —Mr R. G. Young, commenting on tiie mission of Mr Nash to England, appears to consider that Mr Walter Elliot, Britain’s Minister of Agriculture, has no right to protect the English dairy farmer against the dumping of subsidised butter from New Zealand. No farmer of any description can, from his limited individual funds, possibly compete against the national funds of any co-untry without being put out of business. I gather from Mr Young's letter of May 16 that he objects to tlie Minister of Agriculture in England protecting the home indusMr Young is quite well aware of the fact that the New Zealand Government can dump the butter and cheese they purchase on to tlie English market, regardless of price, as they personally lose nothing. Any loss is merely debited to them in the State Bank. This would mean absolute ruin to the English dairy fanner. Mr Young apparently think* that is quite all right. I 1 might point out that Mr Elliot has just as much right to protect the ! English dairy farmer as tlie New Zeaj land Government have to subsidise ! theirs. England is New Zealand’s best ! customer, taking about 1)0 per cent of her products. Yet we in New Zealand j keep up our tariffs against tlie English nianufaelurei\ and are going to raise j I hem slill more lo protect our secoml- ■ ary industries. Go into any shop you • like where imported goods are sold. ; they are flooded with goods from countries that take nothing in return. I Only the other day the Auckland llari hour Board placed a large order in i Germany, because the standard of living is so much lower they can suecessiully compete against New Zealand's best customer, j Mr Young wants all and everything i for New Zealand, even lo putting the i English dairy farmer o.ut of business. ! There is such a tiling us reciprocity. | but no one will accuse New Zealand ! of being reciprocal so far as England is concerned, with high iariff walls against her, which allow New Zealand In be flooded will) foreign goods, manufactured in the lowest standard of both wages and living.— I am, etc.. EQUITY. Hamilton, .May id.

THE COST OF LIVING. (To the Editor.) £i r > —I was amazed to read in Friday’s issue the following extraordinary statement attributed to the Prime Minister: “What the Government aimed at was increased buying power, and that could not be achieved if costs rose in the same proportion. • • • It might be necessary to bring that about by means of tariffs. The Government would not hesitate to protect local industries if that were deemed necessary.” Mr Savage’s intention to prevent an increase in the cost of living is a laudable one, but surely he is aware that the only effect of added protection would be further to increase prices. Our one hope of preventing exploitation by local manufacturers is to reduce exchange and tariffs, thus allowing the competition of imported goods to keep prices at a reasonably low level. The reduction of these trade barriers is the most effective weapon which the Government possesses if they mean to light against an increase in the cost of living, and we have been wondering if they have the courage to use it. It is difficult to follow Mr Savage’s reasoning, and one can only hope his statement has been misreported.—l am, etc., G. HUNTER. Horsham Downs. May 16. THE PURPOSE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have read the letter by Mr J. Galshore under the above heading. It is not surprising that there should be those (probably a big majority) who advocate what they claim to ibe the rightness and necessity of defence. The idea of spiritually separate nationhood—a separate people with indisputable rights over the territory covered by their flag—must logically result in the “defence” attitude, which will not consider stopping at anything lo preserve its monopolies. Whether it is right must depend on whether the separative ideal is right, and those who think it is are not to be blamed for their slogan: “Defence at any cost I”

The accepted ideal of nationality, i which in some cases is merged into i the more expansive ideal of Empire, j cannot, toy the very fact of its nature, be other than a source of international provocation, and in these circumstances it can hardly be argued that the motive of aggression is on an entirely different plane from that of defence. The two motives can, in certain cases, be seen to be one and the same. For instance, white people began settling in New Zealand, a land of the Maori. They brought with them their own style of living, and ; motives and methods of exploitation ! peculiar to themselves. In some in- ! stances the Maoris hospitably welcomed them or made the best of them. In others, the Maoris saw in the invasion of the white people a threat to their own existence, and accordingly in self-defence, they set forth in war parties to drive the newcomers out, or destroy them where they were. Here we find the motives of defence and aggression are one, not different. And, next, consider what did the white settlers do? They met the Maoris, in self-defence, of course; but, further, to ensure their own pro- | tection, they waged what, from the ; point of view of the Maoris, was a I war of aggression, inasmuch as the ! Maoris, who were the original occupiers of this country, were forced to submit and to yield much of what ; they regarded as native rights to the newcomers. Thus, also, we find in the j case of the intruders that the motives of defence and aggression were really the same thing. And, as we know, this is how Signor Mussolini interprets Italy’s position with regard to the conquering of Abyssinia. He declared that Italy must- protect her people who were settled on the outskirts of Abyssinia from the menace of Abyssinian banditry. But Italy, of course, was really considering self-defence from a different point of view. Italy was bent upon saving herself —that is, from a crisis due lo lack of ability to expand—and she meant to assert herself 'before (as she feared) other Powers could completely lock her in on what she regarded as inadequate territory. An aggressor? Yes, but obviously from her own point of view her action was in self-defence. And, of course, it is stupid to imagine that the Italians would have waged war had they been allowed unopposed entry to Abyssinia. 1 am not saying the Italian forces were in the right; but if self-defence by war is justifiable, then who hut the country concerned can determine whether it is called for? When the British Empire was under process of expansion, would the British people have been content to abide by tlie restrictions imposed by some- international court of arbitration? uf course, if Italy was in ihe right, so was Abyssinia; but was it reasonable to quarrel and then to decide their quarrel as these two nations attempted to do? As the old adage lias it, it takes two to make a quarrel. Wliat is the use of taking sides? Where there are quarrels among children, parents and others all too readily take sides, and this strengthens the rivalry and antagonism which has arisen between tlie children. Sometimes it seems tlie duly of tlie parent or oilier person in charge to protect the weaker child | from assault, but unless great tact is exercised such protection is all 100 ! readily exploited or “traded upon” by i the child. ! While on I his subject of warring j children l would like to say that Hie [ J»e«t method 1 have found l'or gelling i disputes speedily dropped or settled j by small children is lo lake both dis- ' puUnits together and place them in a cot out of the way, only lolling them -out when they come to an agreement.' often all that is needed. imT" I lie world of adults cannot, and should | not need to be, mothered or fathered jin Hie manner just described. If wo cannot learn to put aside the cause of quarrels and lights—that cause being unloving self-assertiveness—-then ultimately I here is no shelter fur Ins from Ihe slorin oi our own raisins-, j Riil is there not a more sensible, inure human, way of living? Will anyone j call rue presumptuous if I leslify t 0 tlie realih of such a life?—l am, etc., I JR. L. HANSEN. .Oriai, .May 16.

THE FARMER’S OUTLOOK. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have been watching with the deepest interest the measures the Government are taking to improve the conditions existing in the Dominion at present. They are trying by means of the guaranteed price to help the dairy farmer. By various Acts they are trying to give the Industrial worker more wages and more leisure. They are pledged to help local industries. Let me say, before offering any criticism of the Government, that I am confident that the whole trouble is not due lo low prices or low wages, but to the disequilibrium between primary and secondary prices. If primary products can be exchanged for secondary products in such volume that the exchange leaves a profit to both parlies to the exchange, then all is well with us. The price at which we effect tho exchange is immaterial *so far as tho internal trade of tlie Dominion is concerned. Whether I lie price of butter is Is and the price of the suit of clothes £5, or Ihe price of butter 6d and the price of the suit £2 10s, is a matter of absolute unimportance so long as tlie prices are in equilibrium and show a profit to both parties. It is oniy when you begin to trade overseas that the money price in the Dominion is important. The “money price” becomes important when we want to exchange goods produced in New Zealand for goods produced in oilier countries. It is quite clear that if we fix our money price for butter at 2s per lb and Denmark fixes her price at Is per ib, I hen Britain will want to exchange her manufactures for Danish butter instead of New Zealand butter, because she gets twice as much Danish butter for her manufactures as she does New Zealand butter. This shows Ihe importance of keeping down the money price of all I hose things we export. At Hie present lime the price of but ter in England is low, but so also are the prices uf goods in England that \vc want in exchange for our nutter. Tc put in quite plainly: A pound of New Zealand butler will buy more British manul'actured goods I to-day than it would in 1913-14.” | Surely if what 1 ha\e stated is cor-

reot, then it shows quite clearly that it is the fixing of a high “money price” in New Zealand that is the cause of the trouble. The primary producer cannot pay the high local prices for commodities, and when he could make good by exchanging his butter for cheap British goods he is blocked by legislation. The’reason for passing this legislation was to enable the New Zealand industrial worker to under-sell the British industrial worker, but it has had the unfortunate effect of so raising prices, both to himself and the rest of the community, that nobody can buy his goods, and lie finds himself cither wholly or partly unemployed- ! Now what are the Government doing to put the matter right? They recognise that the primary producer must be given more money so that he can buy more secondary goods, so they give him a price above world parity. They also say the secondary producer must have more wages so that he also can buy more commodities. To cover the cost of this rise of wages they say ihe industrial manufacturer must have more protection, so up go Customs duties. Now what is going, to be the effect of tilts legislation? The farmer will get a bonus on London price and tlie local price will be raised to export parity. The industrial worker will get more wages, and up will go his cost of living above ’the Increase of his wage. The manufacturer will have to raise his prices, and his difficulty of selling will he as great, if not greater, than at present. The farmer will find that his bonus does not cover his increased costs, and lie will clamour for more. If the farmer is granted more, then tiie worker will howl, and if tlie worker gets more then tlie manufacturer will demand more protection. 1 am perfectly sure that the Government cannot restore prosperity by an all-round raising of prices. Tho only way to restore prosperity is to see that there is an equitable return for the services rendered by each and every member of the community, and the lower the “price level” at which exchanges of services is made, then more goods shall we get from other countries for our excess production. This is Ihe only sane policy and tlie only policy that has a chance uf success.—l am, etc-, FRANK COLBECK. I Morrlnsvllle, May ii.