PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20508, 26 May 1938, Page 11

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correipondents 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.

“MAN-MADE” (To the Editor) Sir, —As it is necessary to define terms before using l them as mental coinage, I must ask Mr Harry Woodruffe to give us a clear, concise and adequate definition of the term "manmade ” used in his letter of Tuesday. As far as I can see. the word is so farreaching in its connotations as to be almost meaningless; for outside the crude productions of Nature everything in human life is man-made, including slumps and booms; but, essentially, the human processes are natural processes, because man in an integral part of Nature. —I am. etc., A. WAR BURT ON. Ngaruawahia, May 24. PUBLIC MEETINGS • (To the Editor) Sir.—The views of your correspondent “Janus*’ will be endorsed by most of us, and it does not matter what our political opinions are. We want a good, clean, hard fight; a fair field and no favour. It seems to me that Hamilton will have a great chance to set the standard when the leader of the Opposition speaks in Hamilton shortly. I have heard Mr Hamilton over the air, but never from a publio platform, and I was sorry that frequent interruptions at his meeting in Wellington spoiled reception to some extent. The speech to be delivered here is, I understand, to be broadcast all over New Zealand, so the people as a whole will be able to .judge the attitude of our citizens. It would be a fine thing for this town and district if nothing were done to spoil the radio transmission of the speech. All we would have to do would be to remember that the radio was sending the record of the meeting to all parts. A fair and patient hearing here would set the standard for the Dominion and show that the Hon. P. Fraser’s motion at the recent Labour conference, for a good hearing for all speakers, represented the intentions of that party and of all others. By all means let us have discussion —the more, the better informed we will be. It is a poor case that cannot allow the other side to be heard. But those considerations aside, the fact Is that this town and district will be given a great chance to show how a publio meeting should be conducted, and how public men should be received. I hope it will be taken.—l am. etc., NEUTRAL. Hamilton, May 24. OLD COURTHOUSE SITE • (To the Editor) Sir, —Your correspondents Messrs E. M. Masters and J. S. Anchor are to be thanked for their efforts to stir up interest in the retention of the old courthouse site as an open space. Now that the Garden Place controvercy has been finally settled, and that matter no longer clouds the Issue, there should be no difficulty in getting such an expression of publio opinion as would convince the PostmasterGeneral that the Chief Post Office should be on a site other than the one chosen. After a few months’ experience of special pedestrian crossings and their effect in holding up traffic, people should have obtained some small idea of what it will mean in the future if the Chief Post Office is placed on the opposite side of the street from the retail, thickly-crowded side —traffic held up whilst the people cross, and held up again whilst they re-cross, with the inevitable jay-walkers and those crossing at unauthorised places, to the serious risk of themselves and of even the most sober of motor drivers. No matter what form of control of pedestrian traffic is used, the result must be serious. With Garden Place definitely scheduled for removal it should not be too’much to expect that those who were so anxious for its preservation will unite with those who wish to retain the old courthouse site, and do all they can so that this one remaining open space in the main street be not lost for all time.

It would be a fine action on the part of the Mayor and the newly-elected council if they were to make one of their first public acts the calling of a public meeting in an endeavour to retain this space, which could be made one of the most beautiful spots in the Dominion. —I am, etc., H. J. BEECHE. Hamilton, May 24. AT GENEVA (To the Editor) Sir, —After a bitter attack on the stand made by Mr Jordan at Geneva “McGlosky” concludes: “Let Mr Jordan continue to boost our produce in the Home markets. That is what he is there for." He forgets that at Geneva, which he is discussing, that was not Mr Jordan’s job. He was New Zealand’s representative, and as such had as much right to voice an opinion as Britain’s delegate. Why should New Zealand slavishly follow Britain and rubber-stamp all she does? Does self-government among the Dominions mean anything? Or must it be a case of “Mother always right”? There must be millions of people throughout the Empire and the world who are shocked at Britain abandoning her policy of championing the weak, j In their hour of need Abyssinia, China and Spain have found that Britain has abandoned principle and justice for expediency. No amount of diplomatic spell-binding will excuse the Abyssinian rape nor Britain’s surrender to an aggressor nation. By her attitude Britain has invited the stronger Powers to exploit the weak. Mr Chamberlain has no foreign policy; he blunders on from day to day, while the dictators grow stronger and are gradually encircling Europe. New Zealand is a small country, but its voice, through Mr Jordan, has stirred the world, just as the action of those Chinese airmen in dropping a message j of goodwill on Japan instead of bombs , has stirred those who still claim to be 1 civilised. Despite armament proflt- ! eers. Imperialistic Governments, bargaining politicians, jingoism, and other potential causes of war. the spirit of the brotherhood of man is still alive and must prevail.—l am, etc.. LIVE AND LET LIVE. Hamilton, May 25.

GUARANTEED PRICE (To the Editor) Sir,—The Prime Minister says that the Government told the farmers that “whatever surplus there was (In the Dairy Industry Account) belonged to the dairy farmer.” That is news to me. The Minister of Finance said that if there should be a deficit it would be a charge on the country, and if a surplus, then it would be used for the benefit of the industry, after consultation with its leaders. The producers have battled for a definite promise that any surplus would be paid to them. It is useless for the Government to claim now that it always meant to pay out the money. Mr Nash said that if there was a surplus he would find ways and means of '‘utilising it for the benefit of the Dominion.” That is :n Hansard, and I have been shown the statement. I notice the Prime Minister did not say anything about the farmer having to sell his produce here for less money than he could have got by sending it to London. That is a loss that seems to have gone for good. It is of little use anyone coming along now and saying that the guaranteed price was meant to be only a minimum price. That was not the account we heard three years ago. It was going to be something that would give the farmer the same return as others rendering equal service. This change round is in my opinion a death-bed repentance. —I am, etc., AWAKE. Matamata, May 24. MONETARY BYSTEMB (To the Editor) Sir,—l have just finished reading a remarkable book on the East, written by E. Hessell Tiltman. The author deals with the evolution of the Chinese currency, and explains how China has been able to finance the war against Japan by “an inconvertable managed currency similar to that introduced in Great Britain in 1931.” Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, chief economic adviser to the British Government, visited China and reported most favourably on the general trade improvements that had resulted from the introduction of the system. In his report to the British Government Sir Frederick stated (inter alia) : “I had no responsibility for this bold step. . . • I have no hesitation in saying that the action taken has been fully justified by the success which it has achieved. It was accepted throughout China without any serious difficulty. The notes of the Government banks have been steadily replacing silver dollars in circulation. . . . I think the Chinese Government are to be congratulated on the progress which their policy has achieved. Already much has been done to reestablish sound financial and economic conditions.” It would be interesting and instructive, if one of your numerous currency reform correspondents would oblige by giving the details of the monetary system adopted in Great Britain in 1931 as referred to by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross.—l am, etc-, A. FABER. Hamilton, May 25. WAGE SLAVERY (To the Editor) Sir, —Your erudite correspondent Mr Warburton, criticising the attitude of his socialistic friends to "wage slavery," contends that there Is no more degradation In selling brawn and brains than in selling butter or beer; but surely even Mr Warburton considers that he occupies a more Important place in the cosmos than a keg or a butter-box. As I view it, be is bam-

boozled, like the monetary reformers, into criticising a symptom of a general disorder rather than the disorder itself: surely the attitude of mind which Pope must have been considering when he made his classio remark about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The point which Mr Warburton’s friends seek to make, but which apparently has missed him completely, is that the worker, divorced -from possession of the capital goods which represent the means of production, Is forced into a position of economic serfdom. True, in this and in many other countries he enjoys a considerable amount of legal freedom—he can dissociate himself at any time from his employer and attempt to sell his brawn or brains elsewhere—but he may not be, and very often is not, in a position to take such free and independent action, since his legal freedom Is, of course, “de jure,” while his economic serfdom is very much ‘‘de facto.”

It is patently illogical to suggest that Socialism would intensify “wage slavery,” under democratic Socialism. I use the latter expression for the benefit of Mr Warburton, who seems to imagine that Socialism is a form of totalitarianism, such as the “national Socialism” of Germany, whereas it is. as certain Russian writers have so quaintly expressed it, “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” But under Socialism, everyone is a member of the proletariat, and as Sir Walter Citrine said to the Muscovites, “Whom do you dictate to?” Similarly with this business of the State being the employer. Is one a slave of any kind when one serves oneself and one’s fellows? Huxley, in “Eyeless in Gaza,” has said that human progress is a story of slavery to Institutions, and the ultimate question which faces everyone of us is whether we shall continue in our subservience to institutions and an environment moulded by private enterprise, actuated by the profit-motive, or make some serious attempt, through education and legislation, to vest conI trol of the people's destiny in the hands of the people themselves. The philosophy adopted by Mr Warburton cannot but be regarded as effete, considered in the light of latter-day experience.—l am, etc., JUNIUS. Hamilton, May 24.