PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20273, 16 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.

GARDEN PLACE

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Whether intentionally or otherwise, the impression seems to have been conveyed by some remarks, made at a recent meeting of the Hamilton Borough Council, that the proposed conversion of the hill into a public domain would be derogatory to private rights. Nothing of the kind is involved in the Preservation Society's programme. Full compensation would be paid for all private property and rights affected.—We are, etc., GARDEN PLATE PRESERVATION SOCIETY. Hamilton, August 13.

WAGES OF THE MACHINE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —A note to say that* “Venator” must find some other controversialist. I am not, anxious to score points, but simply to get lo the truth of things. He ridicules my efforts to show that whm estimating the effect of machines on labour demand, some allowance must, he mode for that employed in manufacture of the machine itself. I never advanced the idea —for the simple reason that I had never even thought of if—that this would entail more work Ilian the labour saved. I said: “It may have lowered the demand for unskilled labour, but the manufacture of the plant must have meant more employment along many lines, and for the most part skilled labour” And that, to my mind, introduces the problem of the transference, one of I lie things so successfully dealt, with at Home. I can see no prospect of establishing that mental contact with “ Venator” that would make this little controversy of any practical value to myself or other readers. Perhaps the fault is mine, due either to a lack of power to appreciate subtle points or to express clearly the ideas that I had in mind.—l am, etc., 11. BURNLEY. Cambridge, August 14.

COST OF LIVING.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l do not understand price indexes and that sort of thing, but I will not agree that there has been any decline in what we have to pay for food and other necessities. The report In the paper said that there had been a decline in retail price indexes In June, when compared with May, due to cheaper eggs. People may make up their figures, but those of us, who have to keep the house accounts can find no reduction. Wc know that everything is up. and no amount of argument will alter that fact. Some people tell me that of course prices aro higher, but that wages are higher than prices. Are they? Then why is it harder to make ends meet? The reason, according to what I can learn, is-' that these indexes apply to food and rent and fuel only. They are not the only things when it comes to keeping a young family. What about clothing and boot repairs, and the hundred and one things needed to keep a home going? They come under the cost of living, and if it can be proved that all combined show that the cost has dropped then there is something wrong wilh my way of housekeeping. The official reports may say that there has been a decline, but I have not yet met any married woman who agrees with it.—l am, etc.,

WON DERINC Hamilton East, August 13.

LIVE PIGEON SHOOTING.

Sir, —1 would like to speak on behalf of our dumb friends, both the feathered and fur animals. It is a most shocking affair if live pigeon and sparrow shooting is allowed to be revived again in our civilised country. Wc do not want this country to be a barbarous one in any shape or form.

I also, like your correspondents “Pigeon” and “Fairplay,” read with horror and sorrow about such ghastly practices that so-called sportsmen indulge in at times. I think there is plenty of sport to , be had shooting clay pigeons or clay sparrows. If our so-called sportsmen cannot find enough sport out of shooting clay birds, they should give it up and stay at home and educate themselves to love animals and to protect I shoot dumb friends who cannot defend themselves as we can. I also read with disgust of the exhibit of a live hawk by the Wliangarei \relimalisalion Society. if was routined in a box measuring I inches by 0 inches for ten days. This society looks upon Ihe hawk as vermin. Well we might class many oilier animals as vermin, lull le|. us. as a eivilised nalion, show humane treatment to al'l birds and animals. Wo read a lot about Ihe heathen being cruel and barbarous, but we who' are civilised arc no heller if wo allow •such cruel sports to be practised. I am glad to say the Society for Ihe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at W'hangar-*i has laken up this ease about Ihe hawk. I am surprised that. Ihe Minister of Internal Affairs has given our socalled sportsmen permission I" revive I lie live bird spooling. I urge the Society for the Prevention of Crueltv to Animals to take direct action a'l Morrinsville when the spooling com - indices and petition Parliament lo put. down I his barbarous practice.-. I am. siwmimv. <'.lauihdands. Aumisl |-». hi the Kd'lor.) Sir.—-Is there not same barbed saving ahoul the Pritish to the effect llial. on a line day. they say: “I.el us go out | and kill somedhing?" II seems to me the poorest form of sport. II means unnecessary suffering, and there are . other ways of testing the skill and Ihe I j eyes of | lie expert with a gun. Why ! | MAIIK VII. Hamilton, August I*.

IN VICTORIA.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —New Zealand has a surplus running into fairly big figures, and taxation is increased. Victoria, where the Government relies on Labour support, has had the first -surplus for eight years, and then only £21,000. But the Victorian Government intends to induce unemployment taxation by 20 per cent, and increase the sustenance payments. We do not come out very well In that comparison, but will hope that when the next Budget arrives something will be done. The wages tax should be cut down.—l am, etc., AAV. Hamilton, August 14.

ALBERTA.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The Social Credit advocates made no reply to my inquiry if their organisation accepted any responsibility for Hu- new moves in Alberta. Apparently they had not been informed by the heads, but they will breathe a f»Jgh of relief when they read that Major Douglas is not hacking the “experts" from England.

Now not so long ago there were several correspondents who used to rush into print about Alberta, and •seemed to be well informed about doings there, especially about the Major’s retreat. Could they tell us who the "experts" now advising Mr Aberhart arc, to what school of thought they belong, and if they ever were connected with Social Credit?— I am, etc., CANNUCK. Cambridge, August 14.

THE GOVERNMENT’S REWARD.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Although the above caption is not of my choosing, it will serve the purpose as well as any other. “Pro Bono" has seen fit to criticise my remarks in reply to "Not Again," but he , docs not specify any point that he wishes to argue about. However, I take it that he disagrees with my statement that the last Government caused havoc, and if this is so, will “Pro Bono" deny that the last Government: (J) Reduced old-age pensions; (2) destroyed the machinery of the Arbitration Court; (3) made it possible for some employers to cancel apprenticeship contracts; (4) slashed the wages of the workers right and left; (5) that this policy reduced purchasing power and thereby weakened the economic health of the body politic? Will he deny that the Labour Government have corrected these acts of destruction and have gone, further to improve the general health of the patient by using unemployment funds to useful purposes by providing stability and security for the dairy farmer, by providing invalidity persons to many people (over 700 in Hamilton district) who were not given a single thought by the previous Government? If “Pro Bono" denies all this, then no good purpose, could be served by a continuation of the discussion. On the other hand, if lie admits it, then mv statements to “Not Again" remain unrefuted, and it will not he necessary for me to use up your valuable space with any further comments. One word in conclusion, surely “Pro Bono" does not, expect me lo accept any statements that may have been made by Mi- Hamilton as proof for any statements that he, “Pro Bono." chooses to make. You see. Sir, Mr Hamilton lias made -so nianv s'lalemcnls!—l am, etc., PRO PATRIA. Hamilton, August 13.