PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20511, 30 May 1938, 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.

SUPERANNUATION SCHEME (To the Editor) Sir,—Some time ago you published a letter above the penname “Toiler,” urging the nationalisation of the superannuation schemes now existing in order to establish a capital fund from which to pay equal pensions to all. The proposal, no doubt, startled those who are guaranteed a considerable sum on retirement from lucrative employment (one such, I noted yesterday. is to retire in a day or two on £IOOO a year), but. dispassionately considered, there is considerable Justice in the proposal. We are heading for a socialistic State, of which equality is one of the foundation principles. The plan if adopted would ensure no real hardship, for all would be assured of adequate sustenance, even if some were bereft of luxury lines. I would like to hear the opinions of some of the civil servants on the proposal. Surely they would not oppose it from selfish motives.—l am, etc-, FRATERNITY. Te Awamutu, May 26. HAMILTON SELECTION (To the Editor) Sir,—When visiting Hamilton this morning I was surprised to learn that my long-time friend Mr J. R. Fow had been turned down by a committee. I have known Mr Fow from his boyhood days, and there have been a few gallons of water passed under the bridges since we first met in Walmate. I was a Hamilton citizen for many years and acted with Mr Fow on several committees, and always found him a thorough gentleman. I have known of many charitable things he has done in Hamilton; among them was when he was one of the helpers when the influenza epidemic was raging. He never allowed his prohibition convictions to interfere when an appeal was made by medical officers for alcoholic spirits. I do not know of any one person who has done more and given more of his time to help to build Hamilton to what it is, and I cannot believe that the committee which turned him down last night consisted of Hamilton citizens. I was a serious business opponent of Mr Fow. but found him, as always, a gentleman. I can assure you that I was sorry this morning to learn that he had experienced a reverse for the first time by a Hamilton public committee. —I am, etc., J. LOUGHLIN. Rotorua, May 27. THE COMING CAMPAIGN (To the Editor) Sir,—-The idea that a general election could be fought without any display of ill-feeling is wrong. So many people feel so strongly that their feelings get the better of them. This is especially the case when they assemble in large numbers. Tempers get short, and things are said both on the platform and In the building that, under ordinary circumstanoes, would never even be thought. I saw a good illustration at that debate about guaranteed and compensated prices, Mr Nash said something about mortgage adjustments, and a man near me shot up and shouted that it was all useless. Somebody had refused to consider his claim. For several moments he sat and muttered loudly about his treatment. His feelings got the better of him. I remember once seeing some men I knew well adding their full quota to the booing when a political leader addressed a meeting in the south’. Next day. after reading a report of what happened, one of those men solemnly told me that that was no way to treat a public man, and could not do any good- And he meant it, but he had forgotten that he had added a fairly strong voice to the chorus. It always happens, and it will happen again. It is ina«» psychology It may seem a matter for regret, Jut It would be better to look on it as a safety-valve, which allows people to vent ‘their feelings. Look how quickly they settle down after polling day. They go about their work as usual, and‘quietly discuss the results of the polling. Those that were on the winning side give their opponents a word of commiseration, and those on the losing side tell their opponents to wait and they will see what happens. 1 suppose‘they all realise that the Government must be carried on.—l am, etc., C. RUSBRIDGE. Hamilton, May 2* PUBLIC WORKS (To the Editor) Sir. —From time to time we hear that men engaged on various public works are being shifted to one district or another, and it is inferred, if not plainly stated, that thehe is some political design behind the movements. The same sort of thing has been said at practically all elections —at least, it was a very common charge t-o hear back In the days of the Seddon Administration. Certain electorates have been mentioned by most of the people whom I have heard discuss the subject. but they seem to be quite unable to give any ‘particulars, so that there is reallv nothing for a man to go on. If they could say definitely that so many men had been transferred to a certain place then one could perhaps And out if the works there required so many, but as things are there is nothing at all deflnite. Is there not some wav that the official figures could be published, and then, if that were done regularly, a man could know exactly what was being done? T know of none myself, but T take it that there are ways and means of finding out. All that most people seem to know is that there are 21.000 rnen engaged on public works —I am. etc., INTERESTED. Hamilton. May 28. fThe figures are published each month in the Abstract of Statistics. They cover men engaged on roads, railways, hydro-electric works and other public undertakings, but the particulars as to the districts where the rnen are working are given only in connection with roads and electric works. The total at the end of March wa s 21.26J*. comprising 12,713 on roads, including main highways, 071 i

electric works. 1337 land improvement. 420 irrigation. 1436 public buildings, 478 aerodromes. 2802 railways. and till other works. There Is also published a table showing 1 lie numbers so engaged each month from the beginning oX 1936—Ed. W.T.]

CORPORATIVE GOVERNMENT (To the Editor) Sir,—Mr McMillan is a bold controversialist and always has the courage of his convictions, but I cannot accept his idea of a corporative State—minus the dictator. The idea of dividing the community along lines of employment, rather than of political opinion, does not appear to me to hold out the slightest hope of stability. It would, In effect, introduce the bloc system, and that is notoriously unstable, as the recent history of France shows only too clearly. There would be manoeuvres between this section and that. It would be inevitable, and the compromises would be a handicap to progress. I am not at all sure—and probably Mr McMillan could correct me if I am wrong—but this idea of sectional representation was preached by Lenin. I certainly have read that originally the Russian system was to be along the lines of representation by industrial divisions. Can your correspondent see in the Italian model—without II Duce—anything that would extend the liberties of British people? It must, to my mind, mean a regimentation of the workers that would be intolerable. In Italy the position of the people—that Is, the working classes—ls The corporative State has meant nothing buf hardship for them, and surely that cannot be due entirely to one man? I have several reference books on the position in Italy, by Professor Salviminl and others, and they condemn the corporative system root and branch. It seems to me that Mr McMillsn resembles somewhat the many monetary theorists who sprang up during the depression. In a time when the democratic system of government is challenged he turns to some alleged remedy, it would be foreign to the British temperament. Would he not be better advised to agree that the oure for the ills of Democracy is more democracy?—l am, etc., JANUS. Hamilton, May 28. PEAOE AND WAR (To the Editor) Sir,—ln the Times of May 23 there appeared a letter signed by Mr J. G. Morris, the subject of the letter being a general condemnation of our defence preparations. I am sure that Mr Morris Is actuated by the very highest motives—indeed it was such motives that influenced the many martyrs In the past and gave us so muoh advancement. I would suggest that Mr Morris examine this subjeot of defence from another angle, and If he does this honestly I think he will change his mind. Wars are as often produced by the pacifist as by the aggressor. When a nation allows itself to drift into military impotency it is inviting the aggressor to plunder. This, in the opinion of many experts, led to the Great War, owing to the military weakness that the pacifists of Great Britain were responsible for. It is only of late years that the truth of this matter has become publio. We are Indebted to Mr Winston Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914, who stated, Inter alia: “Tno arguments against compulsory service, cogent as no doubt they were, were soon reinforced by the double event of overwhelming numbers of volunteers, and a total lack of arms and equipment. The small scale of our military forces had led to equally small factories for war materials. There were no spare rifles, there no extra guns, and the modest supply of shells and ammunition began to flash away with alarming rapidity. Many months must elapse even if the best measures were taken before a new source of. supply, even on a moderate scale, could be opened up. We had nothing but staves to put into the hands of the eager men who thronged the recruiting stations. I ransacked the Fleet and the Admiralty stores and scraped together another 30,000 riflos, which meant literally another 30,000 men in the field. Afloat only the Marines would have their rifles; Jack must in the last resort trust to his cutlass as of old.” Here was a wealthy nation courting aggression and well worth plundering. Had Britain been powerfully armed the Great War would never have taken place. We sent a few pitifully-armed men to meet huge armies equipped with great quantities of death-dealing weapons. This condition was responsible for the loss of scores of thouhands of men and untold suffering to women and children, all caused by the pacifists. Mr Morris may say we never should have entered the war, but I think that even he would rush to the aid of any weak and innocent person who was being ill-treated, which was the position Belgium was in when invaded and ruthlessly plundered. We had guaranteed to protect, Belgium, and we shall again rush, I hope, to the aid of the weak when the provocation is great enough. I cannot understand Mr Morris has not objected to our police force. There is no difference in principle in protecting the helpless from either armed or unarmed criminals. The police would take guns or bayonets if necessary and the public are only asking for adequate protection from armed criminals. Mr Morris himself is waging a commercial warfare against everyone who Is competing against him. He uses that powerful weapon advertising to capture trade. This Is quite innocent and justifiable, but it is war to the knife, a war In which thousands of the weak go under. Life is a general warfare; only some nations have arisen from the condition of barbarism and plunder, while some are still in the condition of the ancient barons, who were taught from childhood to rob and plunder. We Britons have grown out of the plundering stage, and are trying to bring peace and Justice to the world's people. Only the strong hand of International justice can abolish war. and it behoves all of ns to build up an efficient, fighting force that will he strong enougli to control armed criminals just as we keep an efficient, police force t■» control civilian criminals. — I am. etc., A. J. GALLIC HAN. Whatawhata, May 27.