PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20507, 25 May 1938, 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 complied with, their letters will not appear.

CHINA'S RESTRAINT (To the Editor) Sir. —May T congratulate you sincerely on the editorial in this evening’s paper? In my opinion, it illustrates admirablv the finest function of the newspaper—that of directing public attention to, and quickening public appreciation of. what is worth while in human nature and human achievement. One’s only regret is that China’s gesture was not more emphasised in the news columns of the Press throughout the Dominion, or, for that matter, more fully reported in the cables. As to the possible criticism of the militarists, that, like the charge of the Light Brigade. “C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas ia guerre,” the more intelligent observers will no doubt consider that China, in holding her hand, like David before the sleeping Saul, has laid the foundation of her ultimate victory.—l am, etc., JUNIUS. Hamilton, May 23. SOCIAL CREDIT (To the Editor) Sir,—l am afraid I have failed to convince Mr Hindle that his credit notes are not as good as bank notes. For this I am sorry; but I did my best. However, since Mr Seymour holds somewhat similar views to Mr Hindle it would be a good idea if they got together and paid their radio licenses, rates and taxes in “credit notes” and T.O.U.’s. I feel that only by putting their theories into actual practice will conviction come. It. may even dawn upon one or the other that money is not only a medium of exchange; it is used also as a commodity and a store of value. In the meantime, I am grateful for small mercies. Mr Hindle “would allow” the Social Credit Movement to issue its own notes. On behalf of the Social Credit Movement I thank him. In reply to the question: “How would Social Credit solve the land question?” I answer—it is not claimed that Social Credit will solve the land question, neither is it a remedy for housemaid's knee, water on the brain, or facial eczema. However, it will solve the very real problem of poverty amidst unparalleled abundance by expanding purchasing power at the same pace as production. Mr Hindle is correct in his surmise that we are not concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth. We live in an age when applied science, invention and cheap power have multiplied the productive powers of man beyond the wildest dreams of Adam Smith. Henry George or Karl Marx. It is no longer necessary to make the rich poor in order to make the poor rich. The policy of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots is somewhat out of date and is a recreation indulged in only bv highwaymen and politicians.—l am, etc., G. HUNTER. Horsham Downs, May 24. THE NATIONAL PARTY CTo the Editor) Sir, —I regret my delay in replying !o the points raised by ‘National” in a recent issue. One was that hep thought it inadvisable for Nationalist speakers to talk on matters of policy. One can understand this to a certain extent. Until some sort of policy had been put forward there would be very little for them to talk about. But the position has changed since Mr Hamilton adopted the compensating price. If the National Party put this into effect, and do nothing else, they will go down to history as the greatest Government in New Zealand’s history. So that if their intentions are sincere 'and there is a growing doubt.) one would expect tlie thing to be propounded and discussed at every Nationalist meeting from one end of the country to the other. Instead of this, there is a complete silence and a show of timidity unexcelled in my political experience. The effort, to persuade the electors that “Socialism” versus “Democracy” is the real issue is feeble and unconvincing. The “old” Nationalists, who will be in the majority in the “new ’ National Government (if there is one) proved themselves to be as socialistic as their successors. The electors only taste democracy once every three years, and no one is likely to deprive them of the privilege. The extension of the political life of the “old” National Party from three years to four, without" the .sanction of the electors, was a more serious threat to democracy than anything yet attempted by Labour. T wduld like to believe that the National Party is a new- party, with bold leadership and constructive ideas, but from the personnel so far announced one is forced inescapably to the conclusion that it is the same old leopard with the same old spots, singing a slightly different tune —since its tail has been twisted. —1 am. etc., B. FARMER. Hamilton, May 24.

THE CHOICE (To the Editor) Sir,—l can see a great effort being made to turn out our worthy Government. The other side desires to place in power a party that would like every man to get what he earns, to earn enough to keep himself and his dependents in comparative comfort, and, if possible, put by a bit of a nest egg before he qualifies for a place on the shelf of retirement; whereas our policy should be to keep in power the party that knows there is no need for thrift of any sort. Let those who desire to work do so as hard as they like, but let us see that we get our share of the result. As sure as we are born, if we let our party get beaten we shall have to work for what we get—a full day's work for a full day’s pay. Of course, old people will get looked after in any case, but what is the good of that to us? What we want is an equal distribution of the national income, and only by supporting the present party in power can we hope to attain our goal.—l am, etc.. RIF. Hamilton, May 23. GUARANTEED PRICES (To the Editor) Sir,—There is one thing that seems to me to be pretty clear, and that is that the dairy farmers in New Zealand this season have been getting less than their produce was fetching in the markets. That cannot be denied, and 1 there is no other section of the community, as far as I can see, that is m that position. Mr Nash, when he spoke the other night, said that there was a credit balance in the Dairy Account of well over £500,000, or was that the figure for butter alone? Anyhow, it was a good balance, and got from the sale of the produce. Every penny of it represents the amount which the farmer has not received for his produce, and he has no say in fhe matter. The butter and cheese are taken at prices fixed by the Government. and they sell, after all charges have been met, for more than the producer gets. Can there possibly be any argument about who has a right to that money? Some Ministers say that wages in .New Zealand have gone up by. some millions of pounds—l forget how many—but the dairy farmer does not even get what his produce brings. If that can bo defended I want to listen-in. During the war, when the meat was commandeered and a good profit made, the Government in those days paid out ihe profit to the men who had owned the meat. That was only .lust, and this Government must do the same or it will know all about the consequences.—l am, etc., GRADE 1. Ohaupo, May 23. THE COMING ELECTIONS (To the Editor) Sir,—Reading the newspapers in the Public Library, I notice that many men are stating that the coming general elections will be the most bitter in the history of the country. The Minister of Labour, speaking in Christchurch the other day. said that the Government could easily be knocked down “by the misrepresentation, slander and forgery of its opponents,” and he added: “The fight will be vicious and wicked.” The same sort of thing Is being said in other places, and it seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I regard the Parliament of the country as a sort of board of directors. They have to handle the business of the country, and so we want the very best men we can get for the work. The decision does not depend on cheering and all that sort of thing. That proves nothing at all, to my way of thinking. If there are several policies, then it is our duty, as shareholders, to consider them carefully and make our choice. It would be impossible for all of us to agree, but there is no need, simply because we cannot agree, to attack the character of the others. After all, the thing is a matter of hard facts, and not of high feelings. Criticism should not be resented, for it can be very helpful, and political differences should not interfere in any way with our personal friendships. I read only the other day that the differences of opinion between Joseph Chamberlain and Lord Morley did not break their friendship, yet they were in opposing parties on every big issue. The man who tries to make wdiat should be a fight over principles a personal dispute is showing himself to be small-minded. There will be nothing vicious or wicked in the coming fight if all concerned make up their minds straight away to avoid those things. And one good way of commencing is not to accuse the other side of being guilty of them. I would really like to see what could be called a quiet election; not quiet through lack of Interest, but quiet because the people preferred to think things out, to listen attentively and sum up carefully. That would be an election likely to reflect the opinions of the people. Long ago T reached the conclusion that as no single candidate was likely to represent fully my, own views—and we are all in the same position as far as that is concerned —the best thing is do was to vote for character. The man might not be in line with me, even on very important things, but one can trust,\a man of character to do what he considers to be right. And there is no need for bitterness or illfeeling. These things have no place in good citizenship.—l am, etc., JANUS. Hamilton, May 24.