PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20266, 7 August 1937, 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 compiled with, their letters will not appear.

VOTE-SPLITTING. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Tho reported remarks of the Hon. Adam Hamilton at Palmerston North on the evils of vote-splitting are Interesting. His views on “democracy” are arohalo, as this priceless gem shows: “The only way to make democracy work is to line up iu two parties." Thinking people have had a surfeit of the party system, which Is a mere abstraction, a negation of democracy and all it stands for. An M.P. is the paid servant of his constituency, to carry out the polioy and wlshe's of the majority of his electorate, and he should do this regardless of “party.” But what Is the position to-day? We have been frankly told by certain Government members of Parliament that they will support their “party" rather than carry out the wishes of their electorate. Can any unbiassed person olalm such action to be democratic? For the leader of the Nationalists to claim that the present prostitution of democracy is perfect Is an Insult to the intelligence of the people. If the honourable gentleman is sincere in his de'sire to see democracy work, why does he not support electoral reform? Where do the Nationalists stand on this question? Politicians would do well to note the writing on the wall. In Australia recently an Independent was elected In preference to a “party hack."—l am, eto., (R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton. August 4. LOOKING BACK. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The death of the Hon. L. M. Isitt removes from the publio life of the Dominion one who had played a great part. As a politician he was not outstanding, although on subjects that appealed to him he oould speak with some of the old Are. When he first stood for the House I happened to be in Christchurch, and at one of the meetings some opponents questioned Mr Isitt about land matters, and he was at once well out of his depth. It was evident that he knew t little or nothing about the subject. The same group duly attended the next meeting, expecting to upset the speaker again, hut Mr Isitt was too wary. He had delved into land matters, and, with his trenchant wit, he gave the questioners all they wanted. But It was as a publio advocate of prohibition that he was at his best. He was a really splendid publio speaker, versed in all the arts and with a gift for repartee that was devastating. Forty years ago I saw him arrive at a town crippled with solatloa, but his speech, once he got on the platform, was a great fighting effort. He did not possess the charming qualities of his brother Frank Isitt, surely one of the most lovable men who ever came to the Dominion, and, in the matter of leadership, perhaps he relied greatly on the late T. E. Taylor; but he was a fine, breezy personality, with a refreshing sense of humour, and always willing to tell a Joke against himself. It has been my good fortune to know many men who have ocouplecj prominent places in the publio life since the early days, and L. M. Isitt, in his day, was a force. The Dominion is the poorer because of his passing. —I am, eto., OLD LIBERAL. Hamilton, August 1.

GARDEN PLACE HILL.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Having taken up the trail on behalf of the majority of ratepayers who recorded their votes against the removal of Garden Place Hill, I would ask why those councillors who are interested in the removal of the hill flout the decision of the ratepayers, who have said that they do not want it removed? Surely they do not call it democratic to over-ride a majority verdict? Councillor Hammond stated that the council should have had the hill removed and not have minded about the votes of the ratepayers at all. Why should not the ratepayers have a say in the matter? We have come to a fine pass when the majority of the ratepayers, who have given their verdict at a poll regarding a loan and the removal of the hill, find the councillors ignoring that decision. I do not know where democracy pomes in here, but we are living in a democratic country. Mr Hammond says that the vote on April 28 was not a proper vote; that it was against the loan and not against the removal of the hill. What" nonsense. If I am any judge, H was against the removal of the hill. I would like to ask Mr Hammond qj’ any other member of the council if the Mayor and Ihe councillors arc the servants or the masters of the ratepayers? The Mayor and the councilini's, in my opinion, are there by the votes of the ratepayers, and they are there to do what the ratepayers wish, and not to dictate to tliem. Whatever is done, the ratepayers have to fool the bill: therefore the ratepayers have a right to a voice and a Why is their decision being ignored? J would urge the ratepayers who voted against the removal of the hill to petition Parliament against such action as that contemplated by the present council.—l am, etc., PHAR LAP. Glaudelands, August 5.

PARTY ALIGNMENTS. (To the Editor.) i sir,—There have been some very 1 Interesting letters lately dealing with various aspeots of politics, and I ■ should like to mention one that has ■ long interested me. Brought up in a i Liberal school, I have watched the i growth of the Labour Party and the > gradual disappearance of the organised , body of Conservatism, although the Conservative type of mind is still with i us, and probably always will be. And ; I was struck, when going over a book i published years ago, by the statement ; that there are links of sympathy bei tween Labourism and Conservatism. The writer says: “Both are instinctively authoritarian, and the extreme ! wings of both are prone to resort to . force instead of persuasion.” ‘ That, was written before Labour . reached office, either here or in the I Old Land. Has experience of office proved it to be true? Of course the publio statements have all been in the * other direction, but acts speak louder ’ than words, so have the acts of Labour in office here shown any ten--1 dency to authoritarian methods? 1 Take this statement: “The people | are not going to be allowed to use * their own forms of transport and 1 ignore their own national system.” And this: “When we make up our 1 minds something must be done, then it has got to be done,” apparently L whether Parliament says so or not. 1 Take the legislation that prevents any citizen going to a court of justice if he feels that a ministerial decision in transport, or the guaranteed price, and a number of other things has caused him an injustice. Can those be taken as evidence of the authoritarian frame of mind? Then wbat of the immense extension of government by Order-in-Council, which the AttorneyGeneral tried to justify before the law conference in Dunedin ? Is that also evidence of the authoritarian system? i 1 should like to have the views of L some of your correspondents on these points. The issue seems to me to be almost of vital importance, for if the authoritarian system develops then Parliament becomes only a rubber . stamp to place approval on what a . Ministry may do. I know that power has been shifting from the House to Cabinet, here and elsewhere; but is it ’ a good thing for the country? The i substitution of the caucus room for r * the elected Chamber is another de- * velopment 'of immense importance. Do all these things go to prove that J Labour Is really at heart authoritarian? 5 —I am, eto., M. FAIRLIE. ' Hamilton, August 4. f j MACHINERY AND WAGES. . (To the Editor.) 3 Sir, —I have been very interested in j the debate between Mr Kenah and , “Venator,” and am pleased to see Mr l Kenah return to the attack. My , opinion is that he has put forward 3 sound logio, whilst "Venator” has . been indulging in splitting straws, - evading direct questions by asking f irrelevant ones, worthless quotations, \ and theories that never could be put into practioe. I also should like to j ask “Venator” a few questions. 1 In last Saturday’s issue he stated j that many harvesters were not re- , quired on account of a record sale of i harvesting machinery. Could "Vena- . tor” produce figures to show the difference between the unskilled labour lost on the hayflelds and the wages paid for the skilled labour required to produce that machinery? Also, in a former letter, "Venator” stated that in America 4,000,000 people were thrown out of employment by a cotton-picking machine. Were none of those people absorbed in the working of that machine or in the manufacture of it? Were they thrown wholesale on the 1 unemployed list? “Venator’s” theories 1 to me are like the professor’s theories ! I read of several years ago. He stated t that at the present consumption rate ; of oxygen in the air the world would 1 have only another 300 years’ supply. . “Venator” does not take into account * the recurring decimal. Seeking more l enlightenment,—l am, etc.. AN ONLOOKER. Te Mata, August 2. 1 (To the Editor.) Sir, —This correspondence has been ■ stimulating, for it directs attention to a very big problem. There is one aspect of it stressed by that militant Liberal at Home, Mr Ramsay Muir. The benefits of the machine may be kept back from the masses of the people by the blockage in the way of trade. This is what he says: “If the unlimited abundance which | has thus been made available for the I use of men has not brought them prosperity, a large share of the blame rests with the governments which have deliberately impeded the movement of trade, partly in the belief that their peoples ought not to draw upon the resources of the world, but ought to strive after an unattainable selfsufficiency ;. partly in the belief that each nation can enrich itself at the expense of tho rest by rutting off ils ■ ra| ]‘' w; ” tiiem. It is government in- - which is rnainlv responsible for tbo failure or Hie earlh's peoples to enjoy the abundance which private enterprise has created.”—l am, etc., B. ACCIUNGTON ’ Hamilton. August i.