PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19904, 5 June 1936, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

A! expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write In tnk.’ It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their prOper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless his rule ls comDlled with. their letters Will “0" appear,

PRODUCERS’ COSTS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Over ihe signature of “F. Armer,” a correspondent writes as if he were greatly worried over the effect upon production co'sts of the 40-hour week and payment of 16s per day to workers under the Public Works Department. Permit me to point out that legislation such as this has no direct bearing upon the economic welfare of the country. A country stands or falls by its financial policy alone, as we learned too well during these last few years of stagnation and despair. The welfare of the farmers and the workers are identical, and depend entirely and absolutely upon the use the Government makes of the power taken from the hands of private individuals for the purpose of directing a policy of sane finance and credit.—l am, etc., £22,000,000. Hamilton, June 3. IN ALBERTA. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The following extract from the People’s Weekly, Edmonton, Alberta, needs no comment, apart from the fact that the public should have the view from Alberta itself as well as from the London Times and other newspapers—- “ The People’s Weekly holds no brief for -Major Douglas. In reading to his listeners over the radio, the scurrilous anonymous letters attacking the Britisher, the Prime Minister, Mr Aberhart, violated all the rules of decency and rourtesy in public affairs. Coiuld he have had any motive in reading them except that he wanted to say to his audiences the things the letters contained, but preferred to do it by quotation rather than directly and honestly? It was a shoddy bit of business. The Premier rode into power on the Douglas chariot and promised the people that he would call in the Social Credit fouhder as advisor. Instead of doing -so, he calis in as financial dictator the chairman of the Committee on Sound Finance in Government of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; and under such dictation has travelled as rapidly as possible in a direction completely opposite from that in which Major Douglas wishes to go. When the Major refuses to go to Canada, and insists on terms, the Premier heaps public insults on him. llis press follows suit. It's not cricket, Sir!” I commend this statement to “Cantab,” “Canruuck,” Mr Seymour and other critics.—l am, etc., WATSON HOLMES. Hamilton, June 3. LAND RESTORATION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —With an enthusiasm worthy of a better cause, Mr McMillan is, however, hard put to it to find arguments to support his “restoration” scheme. He writes: “As the very name of the movement for which Mr Nicolaus stands is Land Restoration, it is nonsense to say that he advocated confiscation.” If this were proof it would be “nonsense” to prosecute an accused who really and truly swears he is not guilty. It ■would also be nonsense to refer to the bitter disagreement about Empire trade which followed Ottawa —for was not the result called the Ottawa “Agreement” ? He chides his opponent for denying that “rent is a voluntary payment” and says that for himself, “never hi my life have paid other than voluntarily.” This is entirely to Mr McMillan’s credit. But if he will consult the records of the nearest Magistrate’s Court he will probably find disconcerting evidence of the steps taken by landlords to make payment compulsory. And if he could persuade himself to converse with them he would obtain much additional evidence. Owing to the risk of provoking a breach of the peace I hesitate to volunteer to introduce him to a rent-collector who “collects” these “voluntary” payments.—l am, etc., DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. Hamilton, June 3. AT THE SHOW. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I was very much surprised to hear that the members of the local branch of the Labour Party, or any of the old Labour stalwarts, were not invited by the Winter Show authorities to take any part in greeting their leader, the Right Hon. M. J. Savage, when he arrived to open this year’s show. This is a matter that reflects grave discourtesy on the part of those responsible for entertaining the Prime Minister. I distinctly remember how all the members of the Reform and United parties resident in Hamilton were bidden to all the entertaining . when their respective leaders opened the show. How very different were ihe Labour supporters treated.

Then again all the seals in ille gallery were 1‘01“ inviled guests. 1 saw lhe guests lmnd their invitations to 11m aliendanls, who had iypewi'illen mpics or "\\‘lm’s \\'llo in Hamilton," and were ust'm'lvxl lo lhcir seals. \\'ll)‘ is lhe ilil‘i'cronrc made? The people \\lm occupied lhesc seals were all l‘ilizvns ol' good slanding, \\'lm would \\'L‘“ afford to my the humble shilling demanded :11 the LIOIH'. Thou. al‘lolwvurds. HID innjorlly \\‘m'c 011lov—lninml nl ui‘lm'noon lea. 'l‘lw ilil‘l‘l-i'unvu in Scaling coulll “I‘ll be rectified. Several or [no children 01‘ Hm lliprh Sl'liumls \\'(‘l‘l‘ provided \\'lHl souls, \\‘llllC many Pillorly pt‘oplu sluml lln‘nuglloul lln‘ vol-ennui): ll 5(‘Ollls lo inn Imm,- in llnmillon \\l‘ have our 111 w for llw rich and nnnlln‘l' fin11m lumn'. ’l‘llv L'lliiill‘t'n L'Ulllll llin'v Monti In lhe lmd)‘ Ul‘ the hall and \\'uuld llil.\'i‘ onjnyml il holler, I uni slit-r.-»—l illll, l‘ll'., ‘\ lAIVHH Hi“ .ll'S’l‘lill‘j. Frauklou. June 1. [\\'lu-n HID lnnlli-‘l's I'nislnl by ”l 1“ \‘l'|l'l‘l‘.~}lulllh‘l‘l \\orr‘ ln'nuglll in lllu imiivp rxl' llw \\'lnlov Slmw (lliHlUl‘ilii‘s Hwy slillwl lllnl Llulilirul \‘iv\\.\‘ llnrl llulllllll lo llu \\illl llu‘ imilnl-iuns ‘isx-nwl :mll nm‘z-i' lluil Imm cunsidm-ml. Tlm >F‘th‘ nllm-nlv‘d lo ihr‘ srhonl chil--Illlw-11 \\vl'v unxlvr llm KHHOI‘)’. l-prm‘i—-‘vnm- lxml >l|nmn lllnl :lnlnlis Iyl'l'l'l'i‘l'ml in In: \\hvrn Hwy I'UH'il hull! we and Linux um aucakcra.—L'd. \\'.TJ

THE LAND QUESTION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In a recent letter Mr Marcus James wrote: “Cardinal Manning was a man who could be depended upon to speak the truth.” I desire heartily to endorse this quotation given us by Mr James, and to support it with others from the writings of the same illustrious prelate—- “ The land question . . . means hunger, thirst, nakedness, notice to quit, labour spent in vain, the toil of years seized upon, the breaking up of homes, the miseries, sicknesses, deaths of parents, children, wives; the despair and wildness which spring up in the hearts of the poor when legal ; force, like a sharp harrow, goes over the most sensitive and vital right of mankind. All this is contained in the Land Question.” —Letter to Earl Grey, Miscellanies, vol. 1, page 251. And this: “There is a natural and divine law, anterior and superior to all civil lav.-, by which every people has a right to live of the fruits of the soil in which they are born, and in which they are buried.” Also, the following ought to be taken to heart by those who are for ever prating about a “national dividend,” but determinedly look the | other way when they are shown where | they may find it: “The accumulation of wealth in the land, the piling up of jwealth like mountains, in the possesI sion of classes or of individuals, canjnot go on, if these moral conditions jof the people are not healed. No j commonwealth can rest on such foundations.” —“Dignity and Rights of Labour: Miscellanies,” vol. 1, pages ! 96-97. These pronouncements are direct ■ and downright, perennially true. Cardinal Manning’s moral courage and intellectual clarity are a refreshing contra-st to the standards of those who think, or pretend to think, that there is no land question, or that it does not arise at this juncture—anything rather than endorse effectually a policy embodying the wisdom of Cardinal Manning.—l am, etc., t. e. mcmillan. I Matamata, June 3. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In reply to the letter of Mr E. W. Nicolaus dated June 2, the writer assumes too much. The point 1 stress is found in my reply to Mr | McMillan, published in to-day’s issue of the Waikato Times. The hypothetical case as placed before Mr Nicolaus was that of a farmer who purchased his farm for, say, £IO,OOO. Ilis cost of improvements was £15,000. In reply to the questioner Mr Nicolaus said that the farmer in question would be refunded the £15,000, but not the purchase price. In other words, he would lose his £IO,OOO. Now, Sir, by right of purchase the farmed owned the land, but Mr Nicolaus takes away his land and does not reimburse the farmer. If that policy is not confiscation, then would Mr Nicolaus tell us what it is? Regarding the question of Government taxation: It is true that Governments use real wealth; but if they have control of the exchange of the real wealth—namely, money—is it necessary to tax or charge'rental to obtain that revenue ? The whole machinery is in their hands and they j have no right to either borrow, obtain loans, or tax, rate, or any other perInicious method to obtain the necessary | revenue. Rents, rates, etc., are only another name for taxes, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. —I am, etc., LEO KAY. Hamilton, June 4. RAILWAY CROSSING. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I do not intend to enter into any lengthy correspondence on this subject. I merely slated what would be the most simple and practicable way out of a difficulty, which, if “Grossing” had his way, would become a long, expensive and .'unnecessary undertaking. The Railways Department have just spent a very considerable sum of money strengthening the railway bridge, and now “Grossing” suggests pulling it down and rebuilding it. This would be the only way to convert this bridge to the type suggested by “Grossing.” Also, what about River Road? If the railway were lowered so would River Road have to be lowered, or a level crossing created there. In my previous letter I suggested lowering the road, not raising the ; railway, as “Crossing” seems to think. There is sufficient room between Ward and Bryce Streets for this purpose, and it would not be such a big job. The footpaths could be left untouched, and the cutting made fairly steep and faced with reinforced concrete. This, as there would be no parking in the cutting, would leave as much room for traffic as at present. A footbridge would connect the footpaths at the railway line, so as not unduly to inconvenience any pedestrian who wished to cross the road at this point. As for a traffic bridge in the centre of the town t this is never likely to be required, as the new bridge, when completed, will greatly relieve the traffic in Victoria Street.— I am, etc., F.I I. ! Franklon, June 4.