PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20726, 9 February 1939, Page 11

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but f or 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.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES

(To the Editor) Sir,—The commentary on British industries by the Secretary of Labour in his recent address cannot pass unchallenged. To the writer it suggests a mentality unable to grasp the fundamentals responsible for Britain’s greatness. It ill becomes a public servant to give utterance to such wholly illogical statements. No doubt, in his capacity and under the wing of a paternal Government, an organised industry in this country will be evolved, such as will prove an object lesson to our friends overseas.—l am, etc., BLACK SQUAD. Cambridge, February 8.

LABOUR POLICY

(To the Editor) Sir, —Mr A. Warburton’s letter suggests that I am a newcomer to New Zealand. I would like to tell him that I was born in this country, and am proud of it. Mr father lias been in New Zealand over 80 years, and next birthday he will be 100 years old. My parents had 15 children, of which I am the oldest. He . quotes large figures. I would like to ask him who got this country into debt. Why, it was the past Governments. The Labour Government, since it has been in power, has paid off £2.000,000 of our national debt. I will leave Mr Warburton to think that over. I ask him to buy New Zealand-made goods and keep the money in New Zealand. I hope the cap will fit him. I -wonder if Mr Warburton is coming or going.—I am. etc., J. MOODY. Hamilton, February 7.

BIRTH CONTROL

(To the Editor) Sir, —The advocates of birth control seem to outnumber the advocates of the law of Nature as God made it. This to me is very strange, and makes me feel somewhat sad. Our correspondence in the Press will not make much difference to people; they will do just as they are instructed to do by the doctors. By this T do not mean everyone. In fact T must congratulate the Hamilton married couples on their beautiful children. I am happy to say that we cannot judge all Hamilton by the correspondence on this subject. It is fairer to judge them by the number of perambulators you see in the street. And when you look at these lovely little treasures it makes you marvel at the hardheartedness of the other class who prevent or destroy life. Science cannot be right when it tries to beat God. “Mother of Eight” displayed weakness when she became disheartened on hearing her children called a “brood.” and so on. Did she not, know that those people showed a want of good breeding, and great ignorance and contempt for little children that Jesus loved? I do not think it is fair to question writers on their experience or how many children they have themselves. A bachelor is just as entitled to write on this subject as a married man. This is not a personal matter. Mr Marcus St. B. James gives us God’s laws, and no one need apologise for giving good, sound, moral advice. One correspondent calls • himself “Enlighten.” Take care that your light is not darkness. He thinks it is old-fashioned to have a family, if it were not for his old-fashioned father he would not have been here to write scientific bunkum. The funny part is that the very advocates of birth control, when they stand for Parliament, are the very ones who offer all kinds of baits to encourage people to multiply. What inconsistency. Naturally, when we try to beat God we only beat ourselves. To my mind the mothers of large families will have an eternal reward for having given God the glory of souls. Life is eternal: that is why it is so wrong to prevent it. Readers, take no notice of the old worn-out. tale about not being able to support children. When we stand before the Judgment Seat that excuse will not hold water. We do not trust God as much as our mothers used to do. Naturally God does not help us so much, and we are not so healthy as our mothers were. We do not live so long as our mothers used to live. We can remedy all this by renewing our simple faith in a good God who will hear us. Try it.—l am, TRUST GOD. Hamilton. February 8.

SPANISH RELIEF FUNDS

(To the Editor) Sir, —In your issue of February 6 is a statement by Mr E. Reeves of the amount of money collected in New Zealand, £3040 net, for the benefit of Spanish refugees. After providing for exchange the net amount sent to the High Commissioner for New Zealand was £2440. Have Mr Reeves and his colleagues ever considered what is the net result of their operations? One wonders. Let us examine closely the transaction described by Mr Reeves. In the first place. £3040 was withdrawn from circulation in New Zealand and destroyed by the purchase of London funds to the tune of £2440 sterling, I thus reducing our pool of sterling to that extent. Obviously these good people have been assisting in the alleged “flight of capital,” quite unwittingly. of course. Had the other course advocated by the writer been adopted, a suitable amount, of. say. £IOO.OOO New Zealand could have been produced at the Reserve Bank, debt free, for the purchase of New Zealand produce for direct shipment, to Spain. The £IOO.000 would have benefited the people of this Dominion without affecting I,ondon funds to any extent. Which is the better method, in the interest of the refugees and the people of New Zealand?—l am, etc., R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, February 7.

BRITISH AGRICULTURE

(To the Editor) Sir,—So our worthy friend Sir R. Dorman Smith, the man who so badly out-generaled the colonial producers’ representatives in Sydney last autumn, is now Minister of Agriculture! More astounding still, the immediate past president of the Auckland provincial executive has the temerity to applaud the appointment of this suave man. Well, well! Sir Dorman Smith is determined to restrict imports from the Dominions at all costs in the futile effort to raise prices for the home farmers. He is already on the job, and will move heaven and earth to get the Dominions to agree to some voluntary scheme of restriction under the guise of “orderly marketing.” It is sincerely to be hoped that our representatives will be astute enough to reject all such proposals with scorn. Let the British Government do its own dirty work. Fancy any Government with any pretensions to intelligence imposing restrictions on foodstufTs when their own population is underfed to the tune of £200,000,000 annually! Surely the present British Government will go down as one of the most puerile in history, with all its schemes of restriction and fining of farmers for growing potatoes of lib in weight, etc., in the face of appalling starvation amongst large sections of the people. The writer is of the opinion that quotas will be enforced in the near future. If so. no doubt a market can be found in Germany for our surplus primary produce. Let the London muddlers do their worst; we can view the future with equanimity, provided the necessary financial adjustments are made here in New Zealand.—l am, R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, February 6.

REFUGEE PROBLEM

(To the Editor) Sir, —It was interesting to read the various views expressed on the question of refugees at a recent meeting of the Farmers’ Union at Hamilton. The proposal to collect Id a month or more from members for the benefit of overseas refugees may be creditable to tlie hearts of the sponsors, hut not to their heads. What practical use are a few pence towards a problem that requires millions? And, furthermore, do the good people who sponsor these schemes not realise that quite unconsciously they are assisting to pro-p up the ridiculous system known as “sound finance”? No private individual can create money. Why not direct these requests to the source of money, the Reserve Bank? We all know very well indeed that we have the physical resources within this Dominion right now to send a couple of shiploads of good New Zealand produce to the Republican refugees in Spain as a free gift, with an intimation to Franco that he would be treated in Ihe same manner when he got round the peace table and settled their differences in a rational manner. We also know very well indeed that we could accept several shiploads of the very young children from the war zone, that they could he accommodated in camps similar to our own health camps, and that we have ladies of leisure who would willingly help in such a task. This would be practically applied Christianity. And what prevents the above proposal, hearing some relationship to the magnitude of the task, being carried out? Nothing but an outworn monetary system that has hypnotised Governments and people into the belief that money is valuable, whereas it is an intangible thing, practically costless to create. All that is required is that the people of this Dominion should instruct Mr Nash, their paid servant and custodian of our monetary system, to make the necessary money available from the Reserve Bank, debt free. Are the rank and file of the Labour Party going to stand idly by and see the “workers' pence” collected in a puny effort that, is an insult to our national pride when the Government has a machine for the creation of money? We have the opportunity now of making a practical moral gesture to the world in this matter. The writer would be willing to meet those interested in overseas relief to discuss the possibilities of the scheme outlined. —1 am, etc., R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, February 6.