PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19901, 2 June 1936, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

AS exDressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome. but {9l‘ whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink, 11, 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.

FREE CHURCHEB.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In my opinion the tone of “Ilistorieus’s” letter is to be strongly deprecated. To bring in an antiquated excuse from a onee-eminent personage to justify the practice was really pitiful. To say that “our traditions” (save the mark!) are Anglican, not Presbyterian, gives room for thought. Whose traditions? New Zealand’s? By whose authority? The last line of his quotation is absolutely rich: “Anyway, we can prevent the other denininations from becoming officers.” Weill Weill Well!—I am, etc., INTERESTED. , Hamilton, May 30.

GARDEN PLAGE HILL.

(To the Editor.> Sir, —One of the difficulties of the Borough Council in dealing with Garden PJace Hill is that it does not know the wishes of the ratepayers. The second deputation that, 1 understand, is to wait on the Postmaster-General next week, may be able to convince him that the proposed site at the back of the area—when cleared—would be quite suitable; but even then it would be necessary to obtain the sanction of the ratepayers. A poll would be costly, even if final, so I venture to suggest another method that would, at least, give the council some indication of how the project is viewed.- In the United States some journals occasionally take what is called a “straw vote,” and they do it on a national basis, the polling running into millions. There will be one shortly in connection with the presidential election. The council would post a voting paper to each ratepayer, and I am told there are about 4UOO. The papers would be returned to the council offices and there would be an expression of opinion that should prove useful. It might be the first time any local body had used such a method of finding out the views of the people, but It would be an interesting experiment. The cost would not be much, and the results might decide the fate of the hill. The whole thing might cost, say, £4O, and the money would be well spent. The results, of course, would not be official, but if a majority of sufficient size were in favour of the removal of the hill then the council could go ahead confidently in preparation for a poll on the loan proposals. If the majority were strongly against, then any further action might not be warranted. A “straw vote” does provide an opportunity to ascertain the trend of public opinion.—I am, etc., RATED. Hamilton, J.une 1.

LECTURES IN ECONOMICS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The letter on this subject by Mr J. Harrison-Bell is one that I can heartily endorse. As he truly says, anyone who has not studied economics from the scientific, ethical ,and historical aspects, and in conjunction, is not qualified to deal with the subject at all. Reading historical works, ono is inclined to sit back and laugh when he every now and again comes across ancient schemes now being advocated under different names, but essentially the same in content. Regarding the Workers’ Educational Association, several years ago, at different periods, I was instrumental in starting two branches of the organisation in two centres, each time the first session being devoted to the study of economics. Well, I must frankly confess that, unlike certain of the present Labour Government Ministers, I did not get much satisfection out of the lessons. I was just like old Omar Khayyam, for I . . heard great argument about it and about; but evermore came out by the same door as in I went.” In those days economics was always a dry and dismal subject rigfyt enough, and I never understood why I could not get any definite conclusions out of it until I began to study the Land Restoration policy. Then I understood why the W.E.A. got me just nowhere, for I reflected that our course in economics started with the wool on the back of the sheep. Not a word was said about how the owner of the sheep came to be the owner of the earth as well. Further, I was more than a little astonished to learn that one of the tutorial lecturers from the university had been a staunch fighter in England lor Land Restoration —but, of course, our universities did not offend great vested interests by enlightening the seeker after economic truth to the fact that all the surplus values of civilisation are capitalised in land values. However, no further about the land question here, except to point to the inevitable conclusion that, by failure to face up, in an historical ethical and scientific manner to economic truth the W.E.A. seems now to have communistic leanings, in sequence to the similar subversive outlook that has set in at the universities, and in their journals. That is the way of people who seek to side-track natural law economic truth. Mr J. HarrisonBcll's o-utlook finds endorsement in the truth stated by Herbert Spencer, in “Social Statics,” page 502: I lie inferences of political economy are true only because they are discoveries by a roundabout proc6ss of what the moral law commands.” Your correspondent's letter was a pleasure to read, for it embraced the truth, the whole truth, and nothing hut the truth. —l am, etc., T. E. Me.MILL AN. Mata mala, May fit.

THE PRODUCERS’ COSTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —it may take some time for the effects of the legislation to become apparent in increased costs to producers, but there are some signs plain enough now. Taken generally, the farmer would not object to paying higher wages if he could, but will he be able to compete with other means of employment? The problem to the farmer will not be solely the payment of higher wages. It will include the securing of labour for the farms. If there is to be a 40-hour week, and pay at 16s per day elsewhere, then the available labour will seek jobs under those conditions. That is certain. The matter that will be forced under the notice of the Government next season will be the provision of labour for working the farms, and it might be as well for them to consider the problem now. I fully agree with the statement made in your columns recently that the transference of labour from production to other forms of employment will not lie in the interests of New Zealand, but for the life of me 1 cannot see how it is to be prevented. Can any other farmer?—l am, etc., F. ARM EH. Hamilton, May 31.

CHURCH PRECEDENCE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I think it is to be regretted that a correspondence on the question of church precedence in relation to the presentation of Colours ceremony should have been inaugurated. The accredited representatives of the Christian Church and its members surely have more serious matters to attend to than disputations on matters of precedence. If they have not, it Is small wonder that the Church as a whole is losing its hold. It is on record that an ecclesiastic once proudly remarked, after shewing the' Church treasures to a prominent person: “The day is far past when it could be said of the Church ‘Silver and gold have I none.’ ” “And has the Church still the power to say ‘Rise and walk?’ ” was the prompt rejoinder. Let those who desire precedence have it if they can derive any satisfaction therefrom. —I am, etc., PRESBUTEROS. Hamilton, May 30.

MAIL DELIVERY.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —It may not be generally known that if one posts a letter in a pillarbox in Auckland, quite near the General Post Office over-night, that letter, though the box is cleared by midnight, is not sent by the early train for Waikato, reaching Frankton at 7 a.m., but is held back for the Rotorua 10.10 train, and is not delivered in Hamilton till the afternoon delivery, often very late. If, however, the letter is for a short distance out of Hamilton, the mails for these districts are closed before the arrival of this Rotorua train, at 12.40, and such letters have to wait another day, and even then do not get delivered till the afternoon of the following day. In other words, it takes longer for a letter to reach someone living quite near Hamilton than if the addressee lived in Wellington. Surely this is a matter for the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. True, the fault lies with the Auckland authorities in the first I place, but it affects residents of Hamilton and its vicinity.—l am, etc., J. F. MONTAGUE. Auckland, May 30.

IN ALBERTA.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr B. Browne made some strange statements about the Social Creditors and Alberta. Everybody and everything were at fault, but not the followers of Major Douglas. That gentleman stated that his system could jbe applied to Alberta, and he must have believed that it could, otherwise why accept the position of adviser to the Government? People know quite well that Alberta is a province, but the authorities at Ottawa did not step in, as alleged, and take charge. Neither did the Douglasites step in and give any assistance. The leader kept well away. It is obvious that the blame for the failure of these theorists is to be placed on the banker, the Government at Ottawa, the provincial status of Alberta. Anything but an admission of complete failure to take a great opportunity. They had their chance and did nothing. The theories may be poured out of the headquarters of the movement in London, but application finds the enthusiasts missing. I have been told that the Social Creditors, when asked by the GovernStatistician in New South Wales and its probable application there—j that fs, tu do something conslruetivo i 0,1,1 not merely to talk at length—promptly refused to give any assistance. Any system might function for a while if conditions were absolutely favourable, but we have been told a thousand limes that tills plan was lo solve problems. Well, Its advocates i side-stopped Alberta.— l am, etc. CANNUCK. Cambridge, June 1.