PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20741, 27 February 1939, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome but tor 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.

PHYSICAL FITNESS WEEK

(To the Editor) Sir,—With reference to Mr Moody’s appeal to modern youth, I would like to remind him that even though we are not as fit as Mr Moody would have people think, modern youth still manages to beat the records of former years in all forms of sport. However, we realise what a blow it must have been to play second fiddle at the railways picnic after 60 years of solid training. “Up late at night playing cards will make you win your hundred yards.”—l am, etc., MODERN YOUTH. Hamilton, February 25.

NATIONAL DEBT

(To the Editor) Sir, —A Mr Moody asserted that this Government had reduced our national debt by £2,000,000. I pointed out that Mr Nash in his Budget showed an increase instead of Mr Moody’s decrease. In doing so I showed that Mr -Moody’s figures were wrong if Mr Nash’s Budget was right. Now Mr J. B. Greenslade hits back at me and says I am better off in New Zealand than in Australia, because our national debt is smaller than that of Australia. This is an amusing reply. What on earth has this to do with the correctness of Mr Moody’s statement? I did not in any way comment on or complain of our national debt, so Mr Greenslade’s letter is poiniless.—l am, etc., AJAX. Hamilton, February 24.

COMPENSATING PRICED

(To the Editor) Sir,—Mr Hunter has failed to show how the loss involved in maintaining our secondary industries can be evaded so long as those industries continue to operate; he has failed to show how that loss is to be borne if it is not to be borne by other forms of production; he has failed to show- how, if all other costs are passed on to farmers, the cost of compensation would not also be passed on to farmers. How, then, has he shown us how to make farming more productive? May i sav a little regarding the curious methods taken to justify compensation? Index numbers are merely a means of measuring changes. The only external price changes that affect us are changes in our export and import prices, and of these we have our own official records. Why this parade of British and Australian index numbers? Even our own price changes since 1914 give us nothing oh which to base a policy, because there is no more reason for assuming that our national income was justly apportioned in 1914 than there is for assuming that it is justly apportioned now. Moreover, the fact that farm prices have fallen, relatively to wage rates, since 1914 does not, and cannot, prove that farmers’ incomes have fallen, relatively to wage rates, since 1914. As the means of producing a commodity are improved the price of the commodity falls, relatively to wage rates, but the relative fall in prices does not involve a fall in the producers’ incomes.

Adam Smith tells how, even in his day, a watch movement could be purchased for 20 shillings that would have cost as many pounds in the preceding century, though wage rates had risen during the same period. Would anyone say that that great fall in prices, relatively to wage rates, proved that watchmakers had been shamefully exploited hv other classes? Would anyone argue that they should have been compensated for the change in prices that had occurred? No one will deny that farm methods, and farm machinery, have been greatly improved since 1914. Of what value, then, are the index numbers that have been unloaded to use? We have official information of the incomes of all classes, and ordinary men and women do not gauge the incomes of those around them by British index numbers. Why should they? They gauge them by such things as the houses they build, the furniture they buy, the cars they drive and the estates they leave at death. Why not give us the only facts we need in place of giving us a maze of figures that prove nothing of the least relevance; figures that are no better understood by those who give them than they are by those who receive them? —I am, etc., J. JOHNSTONE. Manurewa, February 23.

SPORTS STADIUM

(To the Editor) Sir,—The interview published in your columns on Friday on the sports stadium for Hamilton was, if I may say so, easily the best scheme that has yet been propounded. The arguments are so overwhelmingly in its favour that I hope the sports bodies will now combine and demand from the Domain Board the assistance they require. With the Rugby Park scheme developed to cater for the largest crowds, Hinemoa Park can be improved for the athletic people and Seddon Park turned into a stadium floodlit for carnivals, catering for cricket principally, but also for any important special fixture. The Seddon Park area lends itself admirably to this scheme, as, taking in the top ground, which is not utilised at all at present, there will be ample space. There are roads right »*ound it, with parking facilities available on Boves Park, and. what is most important, it is central. It seems to me that the Domain Board has ignored sporting amenities for many years, and now that it is realising that the public is demanding better facilities it is trying to make up 15 years leeway with one bite—a ridiculous state of affairs. The board is, apparently, ignoring the sports bodies, the people most vitally concerned, and is going its own way, irrespective of whether the scheme is sound or otherwise. Although one must admit that the Domain Board has done a tremendous amount of valuable work in beautifying the town, that apparently is all it has done. I think a combined committee of the sports bodies in the town should control the sports areas and leave the board to look after the beautification of the other areas. I hope the Seddon Park stadium will receive the support of all sports bodies and all sporting enthusiasts.—l am, etc., SPECTATOR. Whitiora, February 25. (To the Editor) Sir, —As a keen supporter of sport in Hamilton over many years and one who looks forward to spending a Saturday afternoon either at Rugby Park in the winter, Seddon Park, Hinemoa Park or the tennis courts in the summer, I have followed with interest the pros and cons of the proposed sports stadium for Hamilton.

At the outset I would like to say that the proposal is not before its time, but it seems to me as if the scheme is being approached from the wrong angle. The Domain Board, which apparently has not been alive to the interests of sport for many years, has at last awakened, but now it wishes to foist on to the sporting bodies a stadium which apparently they do not favour. To my way of thinking the sports bodies should have some say in the requirements of sport in Hamilton, but It also appears that they have not yet reached the stage where they can cooperate for the common good. They are all stressing their own individual requirements, and I think it is about time they called a meeting of all sports bodies in Hamilton to discuss the position. It appears to me that if the combined sporting bodies use their energies to secure the Rugby Park scheme, that will cater for as large a srowd as will be likely to come to Hamilton for any Rugby match for many years to come, except, perhaps, an international match in ten years’ time, and also push for improvements to llinemoa and Seddon Parks, there would be no further worries over grounds. The Galloway Park idea, to my mind, is definitely out of the question, as it is too farr away from the centre of the town, and a stadium of its size would be a white elephant, filled only once every five years or so. Who wants the stadium there, anyway, besides the Domain Board? A stadium for the town is a good scheme, but has Seddon Park been considered? That seems to me to be the ideal place, with the other grounds improved to suit the clubs using them. —I am, etc., SUPPORTER. Hamilton, February 23.

BRITISH ISRAEL LECTURE

(To the Editor) Sir,—Your correspondent Mr Harry Gore has made a lot of rambling denials regarding the British Israel lecture, but produces no proofs to back them up. What authority has he for his assertion that the River of Egypt is not the Nile? He mentions that “the British Empire is one nation of Gentiles, black, white, red. yellow and brown.” Mr Gore should be very careful in his statements; the British Empire is not one nation, but a company of nations, and is fast moving towards that greater promise of a multitude of nations, the nucleus of which are the numerous colonies, protectorates and mandated territories under the Union Jack. Neither are they Gentiles, for the nation which took Jerusalem from the Turks in .1917 was Israel; otherwise Jerusalem passed from one Gentile control t i another, which does not harmonise with the prophecies. Your correspondent then says: “The Kaiser has as much proof to be German Israel as British Israel has.” Wrong again! For the College of Heraldry 'the highest authority in the Empire) has verified the descent of the Royal House of Britain from the Royal House of David. His reference to Gog and ils meaning. together with his further statements on that subject, are very con- ! fused, and 1 would strongly advise j him to study Hie "Russian Chapter of | Ezekiel.” bv the Rev. \Y. li. H. Milner, | M.A.. F.R.G.rv. A.Y.I. ! He then goes on to say; “The hirth- ‘ right was for the line of descent down | to the birth of Jesus Christ.” If this j is so. then my Bible must be wrong, 1 for Jacob Israel, when blessing the I two sons of Joseph, Emphaim and | Manasseh, said: “Let my name Jacob i (Israel N be named on them. (Genesis j xlviii, 16). Verse xix. Jacob Israel , speaking of Manasseh; “He also shall become a people, and lie also shall be great: but trulv his younger brother (Ephraim) shall be greater than he. and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Here are two distinct promises to two different individuals, whose seed would develop in greatness, one to become a great nation, the other to

become a multitude of nations. Your correspondent would do well to note the following passages concerning the term “seed,” which prove conclusively that the promises do not refer to the “one seed Christ”; Genesis x.xiv, 4: xxviii, 14; xxxii, I*2; Exodus xxxii, 13; Numbers xxiii, 10: Hosea i, 10; Isaiah xliv, L: Galatians iv, 27: Hebrews ii, 16. The latter portion of his letter does not seem to be relevant to the subject under discussion. Here is a little puzzle for your correspondent to answer, God says in | 11. Samuel v, 7-10: “Moreover, 1 will j appoint a place fur my.people Israel, ■ and will plant them, that they may j dwell in a 'place of their own, and | move no more: neither shall the chil- j dren of wickedness afflict them any j more as before time.” Where is that place? Who are the j people named Israel? Where is the place of their own whence they would j move no more, and where they would ; dwell safely from the wrath and ; covetousness of other nations?—l am, etc., G. McIIELMING. Auckland, February 24.