PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20740, 25 February 1939, 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.

COMMUNIST INFLUENCE |

(To the Editor) Sir,—ln a recent issue Mr T. Harris enumerated the results of Communist. activity in various parts of the world. He omitted to mention, however, some of the most important of their achievements. It is well known, for example, that most of the European dictators owe their rise to power to the chaos which was left behind by Communists. While it is the boast of the Communists that they have given Stalin to the world, it is equally true that they are responsible for Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. No one would question the good intentions of the Communist Party or the sacrifices which its members are prepared to make in a misguided attempt to reform the world, but the fact remains that the road to Fascism is paved with their particular kind of good intentions.—l am, etc., G. HUNTER. Horsham D.o\vns, February 24.

THE NATIONAL PARTY

(To the Editor) Sir.—T really think Mr Kenah overstepped the mark when blaming the Social Credit Movement for his own lack of knowledge concerning Social Credit. There is a rather famous parable of a sower, some of whose seed fell on stony ground, which I commend to his attention. In this connection it seems that some of Mr Algie’s seed has met with the same fate, for we And Mr Kenah stating that, the Freedom Association is not pledged to any parly. One of the first official statements made by the association was that it was formed to assist the National Party to achieve its particular ideals. Everyone will agree with Mr Kenah and Mr Algie that government by Order-in-Council is not a practice suitable to a country with pretentions to democracy. But if they wish to escape the charge that they are more interested in party politics than in olher people’s liberty they should explain why no vigorous protests were heard from them when the practice was first introduced by the National Party.

T am still wondering why the National Party should complain about the cries of “stinking fish” when the party is itself responsible for the condition of the fish.—l am, etc., PUZZLED. Hamilton, February 24.

BIRTH CONTROL

(To the Editor) Sir, —It is a pleasure to welcome Mr John Sykes into the company of those who are discussing the subject of birth control. I think that I must have annoyed John to start with, but he cools down at the end of his letter. I have not said all I wish to say on the subject, having dealt with the primary laws dealing with the matter. I would be pleased if Mr Sykes would point out where I have been illogical. It is not a question of what is in my mind, and I regret that many of those who call themselves Christians advocate a definitely evil thing. As this is still a Chrisitan country, nominally, it is correct to take the proper Christian attitude on the subject. If people will fall into error, then their conclusions must also be in error. Mr Sykes cites a passage from one of my letters and declares it a “gratuitous insult” to many women. Mr Sykes assumes too much on this point. I am not suggesting “any and every woman to subscribe to his limited views.” I am stating a fact of everyday life as we see it in action throughout New Zealand —young married couples who will not be encumbered with children because of inconveniences caused. They desire a few years of pleasure. It is of no use opponents using adjectives such as “puerile nonsense,” “lot of rubbish,” “armchair critics,” etc. By using such phrases they give the satisfaction of knowing that one has hit home. The defections caused by illegal uses are well known to medical authorities. It does not necessarily follow that we see immediate causes. The reports of Sir Humphrey Rolleston, of Cambridge University, who analysed 300 cases: Dr. Dorrin F. Rudnick, of Chicago: Dr. John A. McGlinn, of Philadelphia; Dr. Max Marcuse, of Germany—these are only a few of the authorities whom I can quote who support, my contention relative to the after-effects of using illegal methods to control birth. Where is the “rubbish,” John?

Regarding the spiritual aspect, of the matter, no matter whether one is unemployed or not, or those underfed, etc., unless these and others think along the right lines, no improvement in the material aspect or environment can permanently put matters right. As we think, so we are, but the trouble is that so few think. And that is the first thing, John. —I am, etc., MARCUS ST. B. JAMES. Hamilton, February 24.

FORGOTTEN LEGION

(To the Editor) Sir.—The formation of a Consumers’ League is an event which will be welcomed by all sections of the community. irrespective of party creeds. Producers in every department are strongly organised, distributors are equally well organised, and therefore be a strong organisation of those who buy the products of industry. Wages and other incomes have been lifted to give that greater purchasing power which is essential to prosperity, prices are being raised all round to cancel out that purchasing power, and everybody is urging, everybody else to give more and take less. While the employer yields in the demand for higher wages he adds to his prices to cover his extra coM.s. ami an argument is developing regarding which is the greater, the lift in vages or the rise in costs. The wage-earners say that whilst wages are climbing the stairs their

living costs are going up in the lift, and the remedy which is being tried is ! for the wage-earner to take the j stairs two at a time, while prices go up in the express lift. Against all this the consumer has but one attitude —lie must pay. pay. pay. The Prime Minister has’staled that he cannot consider the viewpoint of-individuals, but can only deal with organisations, and it has been to the disadvantage of consumers that, thov | have been without an orimnisati.m to I state their case. It is here that tho i •:«.iisunu , ['>' L« , ague will fill . longfelt want, and if i! revives the supi port it deserves it promises to become one of |he m'-anisaUoiia in New Zealand. int etc., O.tNSUMER, j Hamilton, February 2-*.

STADIUM FOR HAMILTON

(To the Editor) Sir,—l beg leave to occupy valuable space, but I have felicitations to offer. I would like to congratulate the Hamilton Domain Board on the idea of making some kind of major sports grounds at Galloway Park. I can now get the garden dug. My beloved helpmate of the past five and thirty years has been rather remiss of late, but he now says that he is “darn well not goin' all that way to see any game of football or anything else.” He has lately been very moody and mutters to himself. He talks of tombstones and memorials, and when I taxed him about it, all he would say was that “they were a-diggln’ and puttin’ up a memorial before they was dead.”—l am, etc., OLD WOMAN. Hamilton, February 24. (To the Editor) Sir, —Unfortunately the Hamilton Domain Board, due apparently to its constitution, is neither responsible nor responsive to the opinion of the public or to public criticism. I am very surprised that some more able, and I had hoped vitriolic, pen than mine has not warned the public of the unwarranted waste of public money in building a stadium at Galloway Park. I have heard of “white elephants,” but never hoped to see one so close to home. I have spoken to numerous people during the past few weeks over the proposed stadium at Galloway Park, and not one has been in favour of the site. Their remarks have been bitter, pointed and caustic. I hope, Sir, that before any such rash step is taken the united voice of the sports bodies, the Borough Council and the man who pays his “bob” each week will persuade the Domain Board that its duty to the sportsgoing public is paramount—to provide facilities where the public will use them. With the Galloway Park scheme, Sir, I am DISGUSTED. Hamilton, February 24. (To the Editor) Sir,—The organisers of the Fitness Week carnival held at Ilinemoa Park on Wednesday last are to be congratulated on the wonderful display of variety and ability produced. Being a relative newcomer from the land of the “heather and the kilt,” there is no need for me to say to which corner of the ground my wee grandson pulled me. There I witnessed a display of democratic freedom—the public took possession of the ground. I was at first amazed, but soon realised that mob instincts are stronger than one strand of fencing wire. That set me thinking.

I have followed with interest the movement to secure improvements to your local sports grounds, and no one can deny that they need it. Being now more or less on the retired list, I have had nought else to do but have a sight of the various “parks” and pick up occasionally someone’s point of view. After giving the matter considerable thought I fear that I must differ from the authorities or the body that controls the grounds—it seems to me that very few do agree with them—and endorse the opinions of the sports bodies themselves that a stadium at Hinemoa Park is a necessity.

I have carefully gone over the grounds and the arguments, and all I can see in favour of Galloway Park Is its size. I think that argument can be dismissed by building a bigger stadium at any one of the three other places—firstly, at Rugby Park by subsidising the Rugby Union in its scheme: secondly, at Seddon Park; and, thirdly, at Ilinemoa Park by using a portion or all of the tennis courts, which could be shifted back or moved across the road to Boyes Park. Any one of these sites would give a stadium as big as the Galloway Park scheme, and with the overwhelming advantage of a central locality. However, I consider a stadium of 37,000 capacity, unless used regularly, would develop more weeds and overhead costs than fitness. I think the ideal solution is for the Borough Council and the Domain Board unitedly to assist the Rugby Union as I have mentioned, and at the same time to build a small stadium at Hinemoa Park with a capacity of, say, 8000 to 12,000. This would then cater for all sports, excluding none. The larger ground at Rugby Park would supply the needs of the only sport to attract a crowd of over 10,000 and the smaller stadium at Hinemoa Park would do for all major attractions of other sports, as well as such a display as was held on Wednesday evening last. I am very surprised, really, at the apathy shown by the Rugby Union, for surely it must recognise that unless it does get its ground improved its financial position will never improve. It is the profits from big matches which tide it over lean times.

One last point: I would like to a4d my weight to a statement made bv the president of the Athletic Club and published in your paper on Thursday or Friday last, to the effect that it seems a very great pity that with the great amount of cheap spoil available from Garden Place Hill some use should not be made of it in improving sports grounds. 1 have heard it said that the Galloway park scheme is but. a “red herring.” Coining from Aberdeen, I should know what a red herring is, and the odour it leaves behind.—l am, etc., GREEN TARTAN. Auckland, February 24.