PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20261, 2 August 1937, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters axe 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.

RAGWORT SEED FLY.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Dr. David Miller, of the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, recently visited Tirau and Putaruru and addressed the members of the Matamata County Council and Putaruru Farmers’ Union on the ragwort seed fly and Its operations. I collected that morning a number of flowers, in different stages of attack, including a fully-developed grub, which shows that it is still working. These were the subject of much attention, as on this matter seeing is believing, with the farming community. Later Dr. Miller visited my property, at his own wish, and expressed himself as delighted with the way the parasite had established itself. In all hlB experience, he said, he had never known of such early results. The prospects were very bright, and at an early date this spring a muoh wider survey will be made, as the fly travels far afield and Is expected to Increase rapidly. Dr. Miller motored to Rotorua and conferred with Mr A. F. Moncur, M.P., on the subject.—l am, etc., A. A. RIGGIR. Putaruru, July 30.

POLITICAL PROGRAMMES.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The disgust with political programmes expressed by Mr Warburton can easily be understood, but what Is the remedy for the state of affairs he outlines? Might I draw his attention to a statement made by the late Lord Acton, in his day said to be the wisest man living? “The one pervading evil of democracy Is the tyranny of the democracy, or, rather, of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds by force or fraud, in carrying elections. To break off that point Is to avert the danger. The common system of representation perpetuates the danger. Unequal electorates afford no security to the majolrties. Equal electorates give none to minorities. Thirty-five years ago it was pointed out that the remedy is proportional representation. It is profoundly democratic, for It Increases the influence of thousands who would otherwise have no voice in the government, and it brings men more near an equality by so contriving that no vote shall be wasted and that every voter shall contribute to bring Into Parliament a member of his own opinions.” Is It not a fact that programmes, made of promises, prove so effective because the eleotoral laws are so- out of date? Given a scientific system, one by which the wishes of the people could be reflected In the House, then political programmes might lose much of their present appeal.—l am, etc., lIISTORICUS. Hamilton, July 31.

IMPORTANT POSTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Perhaps a layman can be forgiven for sometimes getting completely “boxed” when it comes to politics, and the way of the Departments of Slate. During the week I was interested, as a migrant from the south, in a brief report about tjie appointment of a secretary to the North Canterbury Hospital Board. That body had decided to appoint Its accountant to the position, as he had been a long time with the board, knew the procedure, and enjoyed the confidence of the members. The Department, however, insisted that, as the position was one of Importance, the vacancy should be advertised. It would not say that the proposed appointee was not the best man, but to make sure it must ask the board to advertise calling for applications.

Now that may seem all right, but not so very long ago the Government made a very important appointment jn connection wilh ils supplementary wireless stations. The matter is One of business, for that was tlie policy; but as far as I can discover the Government did not call for applications. It simply appointed a man who had had some experience of broadcasting. Still, it is doubtful whether he had had more experience of that olass of work than the accountant of the southern hospital board had had of his duties. Now, if the course Is to be Imposed on the one hand, why is It not followed on the other; it puzzles me. —I am, etc., STATIC PLUS. Hamilton, July 31.

SECONDARY INDUSTRIES.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —There -seemed to me to be a strange conflict of ideas in the statement made by the secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Association the other day. The increase of imports Is blamed for the danger to the secondary Industries. Some factories, he said, had few orders and could not compete. “The market was being absolutely swamped with Australian goods,” and so on. But in another paragraph we get this: “Manufacturers who have been working at top speed for the last twelve months have suddenly been confronted with an almost complete absence of demand for New Zealandmade articles. During the boom period retailers and others on whom manufacturers depend for their sales laid In heavy stocks against a further rise In prioes. Consequently the market to-day Is hopelessly glutted.” Now, both explanations cannot be right. The glut must be due to either Imports or to over-stocking of local goods, and here Is the frank admission that it is to over-stocking and not to imports. If retailers have stopped buying because their shelves are full, then the slackening of the demand noted by the factories is explained, and apparently the goods stocked have been made in the Dominion, and not imported. It seems clear, from the secretary’s statement, that evidently where they had a choice, the Dominion retail firms bought local goods, keeping the factories going at top speed, on his own admission, so that manufacturers must have been able to oompete, for the rise in costs did not happen only last week. This sudden demand for more protection will have to be supported by more convincing evidence than the contradictory statements we have had so far.—l am, etc., J. STRAIGHT. Hamilton, July 31.

MACHINERY AND DAIRY FARMING

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I must thank “Venator” for his prompt and courteous reply to my Inquiry, and hope he will not misunderstand me if I say that the explanation puzzles me a little. He had been stating emphatically that the extended use of machinery threw millions of men out of work, and I asked him to explain how the use of the separator and the milking machine contributed to that end. The reply is that these machines have increased production per labour unit, “but this has been almost counterbalanced by the spread of weeds and other pests and diseases which have effectively prevented workers from becoming Idle." That surely is a strange digression. Some weeks ago “Venator” wrote: "In our own dairy industry output has been more than doubled since 1924, yet the number of persons engaged in it is some 8000 fewer.” Now, he says, eradicating weeds has prevented workers from becoming idle. Do the two things make logical argument? My third question was whether the use of the machines mentioned had “prevented the abolition of poverty,” and the reply is the same as to the first query. But, really, it is not a reply at all. If they have resulted in more economic production, then they must have assisted to remove poverty; they must have contributed to the economic strength of the country. The manufacture, transport, installation and operation must have created employment at every stage, and skilled employment at that. Would “Venator” please apply his dictum, in a recent letter, solely to the machines mentioned? The dictum was: “Either they must destroy the machines, to give people work, or they must, give the people wages without work.” My second question was whether the use of these machines prevented “concentration of wealth.” “Venator” apparently has some doubt as to the meaning of the phrase, but he must have heard complaints about the maldistribution of wealth, and that means, in other words, concentration. If these machines have “greatly increased production per unit” then have they not aided economic production, and thus have assisted to create purchasing power? Their abolition might create a demand for hand work, but would that Increase wealth? Would It build up the economic strength of the primary producers? Finally, if these machines have freed men to fight pests and weeds, then that work must increase production, for without them the farmer would not be able to employ the labour for the fight, and weeds and pests would quickly reduce production. Is not I lie service of freeing men for this necessary work something lo be said in favour of flic machine?—l am, etc., 11. BURNLEY. Cambridge, July 31.