PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20270, 12 August 1937, Page 7

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.

FOREBT PRODUCTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —With reference to the report of the annual meeting of New Zealand Forest Products, Ltd., published In the Waikato Time-s of July 30— The directors desire to correct the interpretation that shareholders might expect eight years to elapse before looking for realisation on their investment. The period of eight years applies only to the balance of the contract period for maintenance of the oldest plantings and bears no relation to the realisation of the forests, which will be proceeded with as soon as an award has been given by the Bondholders’ Incorporation Commission on compounding of the maintenance contracts and possession of the forests is given to the company.—l am, etc., DAVID HENRY, Chairman. Auckland, August 10.

STATE AND INDIVIDUAL.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—“lndependent" was not the only person impressed by the letter of Mr Fairlie on the likelihood of a Labour Government proving authoritarian. It may be that the danger Is due to inexperience of office, and one can see how easy it would be for Ministers, even with the best of intentions, to make a mistake. They really desire to have efficiency, and conclude that the best manner would be to accept full responsibility themselves. I do not think that they aim at the centralising of power for any other purpose, but at the same time they dearly -have not realised the larger issues that are Involved.

The wishes of the people do make government more dlffloult, but In a democracy that cannot be avoided. The matter was stated very plainly by a British writer recently: “If this power of the people (the force of public opinion) makes the task of government very difficult Indeed it has to be remembered that government of a free people must always be difficult. That Is one of the prices that has to be paid for freedom.” If we are to choose between efficiency and freedom, then surely we ohoose freedom. That does not mean any need to lessen the oonstant effort to Increase efficiency, but it must not be -done by entrenching on the liberties of the people further than is essential. Liberty, of course, does not mean unrestricted freedom. That would be license.

Many people deplore the laok of efficiency in our methods of governance, but one of the ablest publicists at Home stated some years ago that that very margin of Inefficiency was a safety—a sort of buffer —that was of no little importance in the democratic State. Any course that would tend to limit the rights and the liberties of the people, solely because those in authority held, even conscientiously believed, that by plaoing wider powers In the hands of Ministers greater efficiency could be obtained are looking at the matter from the wrong angle.

If, as Mr Fairlie seems to think, the notion of the Government in preventing access of certain parties to the oourts is a sign of an authoritarian trend few could deny it, but looking deeper for the reasons, I suggest that the cause is this desire for efficiency, In whloh some Ministers have got things out of focus. Freedom is a muoh more precious possession, and efficiency gained at the cost of restricted liberty would be a bad bargain.—l am, eto.,

FRAE DINGWALL Hamilton. August 11.

LIVE PIGEON SHOOTING.

;To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondent “Live Pigeon" has done well to draw attention to the proposed live pigeon and live sparrow shooting matches to be held at Morrinsville. A few years ago such strong protests were made against live pigeon matches at Ruakura that clay pigeons were substituted, and it was thought that this cruel sport (?) was finished with in tho Waikato.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has always strongly objected to this Inhuman practice, and In a Bill for the protection of birds, which the Federated Societies have had drafted, Clause 7 reads as follows: "Every person who shall promote, arrange, conduct, assist in, roceive money for or take part in, any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display, or In any event whatever, at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand or by trap, contrivance or other means for the purpose of being shot at the time of their liberation, or who, being the owner or occupier or person in charge of any premises, shall permit his premises or property, or any part thereof, to he used for any such purpose, shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively or in addition thereto, to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months." A deputation waited on the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. W. E. Parry, on July 9 to ask that the Government take up the Bill. In his reply Mr Parry stated that “the use of captive pigeons in sport was not so prevalent as some people believed. We cannot growl at conditions as they exist In this country. The use of live birds for targets is reduced to what is practically championship shooting. We cannot eliminate that in five, minutes, but we arc doing what can be done,” and so on—the politician’s usual evasive way of answering. If the BiFI is brought before Parliament. let everyone who is sympathetic send V telegram to the local member and the Prime Minister urging support; if they get bombarded with thousands of telegrams it may have some effect. —1 am. etc., F. J. MAR FELL, Hon. Secretary W.S.P.G.A. 1 lami 11» mi. Anuu.-i to

DAIRY FACTORIES.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I notice that the Cambridge Dairy Company is claiming the biggest pay-out for the season. That to me smashes the old-time bogey of the larger the company the smaller the cost of production. I think the Cambridge supply comes from within a radius of five miles, hence the cartage charges and time in getting the cream to the factory are reduced. Ohaupo is Ideally situated for a factory near the rail, and has sufficient cows within a radius of five miles. Now the cream is carted to Hamilton or Te Awamutu (two companies) and is half a day on the road; and with the dosing of the Waikato Valley Dairy Company the other companies have had to Increase the factory and Increase hands to meet the supply, whloh could have been handled ■with half the staff by a small faotory at Ohaupo. The Government talks about the drift of people to the towns, at the same time allowing milk factories to be built in the towns. Why not in the country, where the milk is produced? —I am, etc., OHAUPO. Ohaupo, August 9.

GOLD PRODUCTION.

* (To the Editor.) Sir, —Could not the Minister of Mines let us know why gold production in New Zealand last year dropped by 700 ounces? With gold at a high price every country where mining and dredging are carried on is doing its utmost to get the full benefit, yet New Zealand, with ample chances for increasing the output actually produces less.. We were told that large English and Australian interests were getting into the business last year; in fact, at one time either Mr Webb or M** Semple mentioned a number of very large companies that were operating, or soon would be, on the West Coast. I do not know when gold moved up to over £7 per ounce, but the fact is that last year New Zealand output was below 1932. Some time ago I had a talk with old cobbers, and they said that the gold tax was hitting some of the smaller companies very hard. Well, could not the Government inspect the position and see if it is really hampering production? If It is, then let the tax go. The Government would get its return in other ways if the companies got on to a good paying basis. Mining is a great thing for employing labour, and I guess that the Government would have more by having men employed than it gets from the gold tax.—l am, eto., No. 4 LEVEL. Morrinsville, August 9.

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —If an anonymous scribe may be permitted to do so, I should like to express my appreciation of the able leading article on constitutional matters in to-day’s Times. In these days—and, indeed, for some time past—interest in matters economic tends to overshadow the more prosaic, but not less important, constitutional matters pertaining to the Dominion’s polity. As a believer in the Referendum, per se, I like the suggestion that next year, simultaneously with the general election, the people should be given the opportunity to state their views on the matter of three or four-year Parliaments in the same way ha they have the right to vote on the liquor question. The matter of the method of election of members is equally important An electoral system which permits 36 minority members to sit in a House of 80 stands self-condemned. I cannot agree with you that proportional representation is the best system of election to adopt, as the multi-member constituencies would be too unwieldy, and the number of informal votes usually registered under this system is disproportionately large. But I do not see any good reason for failing to adopt the preferential voting system as used in Australia, except that the present olumsy system generally suits the party in office, which is probably why we hear nothing about electoral reform fsom the Labour' Party nowadays, though they used to be voluble enough about It in the past. Then there Is the matter of the Upper House. Why not reconstitute this as a Senate to be elected by the people on similar lines to the Federal Sehates in Australia or the United States of America? That is to say, a certain number of members to retire at stated intervals, but are eligible for re-election. This -has a two-fold advantage. Continuity is assured because the whole House is not dissolved at once, and at the same time the people are consulted at regular and frequent intervals, and the Government of the day is thus kept more mindful of changes in public opinion than under the present system in New Zealand, where the Upper House, by the appointments method is little better than a political refuge.—l am, etc., INDEPENDENT Hamilton, August 10.