PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20742, 28 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.

COMMUNIST INFLUENCE

(To the Editor) Sir,—ln the field where a long observation and repeated experiences have resulted in putting the mind into a constant and methodical relation with things and their variation, as in the natural sciences, there the myth and superstition of words are left behind and vanquished. In the study of human relations and actions, on the contrary, the passions, the interests, the prejudices of school, sect, clan and religion, the fetishism of words, or verbalism, resorted to by many people conceal the living essence of things. Old superstitions become discarded, but they, unfortunately, survive among many of us, including Mr Hunter. The mediaeval fathers seriously debated the number of angels capable of dancing upon the point of a needle. The only thing wrong in t.heir method of reasoning was that it lacked method. Wings are necessary organs of locomotion for birds. The needle is useful in the hand of the seamstress. But the fathers jumbled things out of t.heir true relationship, and were as vociferous as Buridan’s ass in asserting their belief in their fantastic subject, although it existed only In their disordered imagination. Some correspondents have persistently and almost as loudly as the immortal ass of Athens brayed about and jumbled Socialism, Individualism, Fascism and Communism into an Irish stew of mental fetishes. The correct line of approach to any problem is the scientific, and in the study of social dynamics the correct approach would be the historical, but my space is limited. Mr Hunter will observe that I have not given much attention to his letter for reasons stated above. My desir'e is simply to clear the decks of useless verbal lumber prior to a further discussion. —I am, etc., T. HARRIS. Frankton, February 27.

CAUSE OF “FACIAL ECZEMA”

(To the Editor) Sir,—Dr. Filmer admits that his department has failed to solve the cause of “ facial eczema ” and must wait for another epidemic. From the shocking propaganda being used in Britain about our “ eczema ” meat it seems another outbreak would ruin us. Luckily I am in a position to give the exact cause, also the preventive, so we will be saved the humiliation of further attacks from our opponents in the British meat market, and our scientists will have their own time to investigate the trouble. From 1909. when we had a bad outbreak, to 1935, when we had a fairly bad one, I made it my business to take a survey of farms in those years, also when spasmodic outbreaks occurred, and always I found the pasture was ryegrass and clover. In 190!) I found we had two causes, and in 1914, owing to a very heavy local thunderstorm over my 1000 acres during the drought of that year, I took the opportunity to confirm my previous finding, as I had conditions to suit. (1) I found the ryegrass (after the first feeding off after sowing) was toxic. 1 must explain to farmers that this is caused through an ergot growth. When not eaten by stock it not only sheds its deadly spores over the surrounding grass but pollutes the ground with its poison, to be drawn up at all first growths, so the blood stream of all stock grazing on It is poisoned more or less. (2) When there is a sudden flush of clover it is poisonous also, and sets up acute inflammation if hay and molasses and fibre crops are not supplied. Those two poisons cause heavy losses to both sheep and dairy cows every year—photosensitisation, it is cUle'd, and it is causing heavy loss in South Australia. (3) The epidemic is caused by the two above causes, and hot and humid climatic conditions, with warm rain giving a fibreless growth on highly stocked farms, when if the farmer fails to supply his stock with sufficient hay and fibrous crops the paunch collapses, flooding the system with poisonous fluid. The liver cannot function, so you have succeeded *n poisoning your stock. Thus the brief periods mentioned by Dr. Filmer for chemists and investigators to work In are explained. A detailed explanation has been offered to the Department of Agriculture and farmers generally, and is still offered. The only stock I have ever lost was by experiments or neglecting to give a correct diet, so that they lost their cud. Prevention is better than cure. I found that you need to allow your cows a ration of hay at all times of the year, with a sprinkling of molasses and water on it. Give them the option of taking it at any time, when not only will you have no “eczema,” but P proved you will clear up your low grading through “clover taint.” It acts like magic. I had 1000 ewes around two haystacks In 1914. A patch of bush was handy, and T lifted the bottom wires, allowing full entry. When they ate well under I ran cyclone netting around on an out.ward angle, cut enough hay each day to keep alongside for them to pull through, and sprinkled molasses and water on it. It takes no time and you have no fear of “eczema.” As I said in previous' letters, the trouble is all man-made, and if we were asked to stand up to the conditions we ask our stock to endure we would soon have more than “facial eczema.” There is no need for the heavy losses of cows at. Morrinsville and elsewhere if farmers will recognise the cause. I found that, eaeh farmer has a pet theory of his own. If and when he is ready to be told I will give him a line of .action that will prevent his losses. Given the riprht. conditions in a hothouse of rye and clover, flush growth of second-year and onward pasture, anyone can produce “ eczema,” but who wants it?— I am, etc., W. P. SEATON. Hamilton. February 28.

STADIUM FOR HAMILTON

(To the Editor) Sir.—Tt is a general saying that the public of Hamilton are conservative in their support of all branches of sport, and this is more or less confirmed by the small attendances at the regular meetings held by the various sporting bodies. This is not to be wondered at when one considers the very narrow and antagonistic attitude the various sporting organisations themselves are adopting in regard to the proposal of the Hamilton Domain Board to make at Galloway Park a first-class stadium which will serve Hamilton and surrounding districts for practically all time. The stadium is to be built at a fairly reasonable cost, to which the sporting bodies will be asked to contribute not a penny. I understand, excepting by rental at the time when the park is being used by them. Their attitude is bard to understand, for it is not many months ago when there was an outcry by these same people against the Domain Board for its apparent lack of interest in the sports bodies in not providing sufficient suitable playing areas, with adequate facilities, which are conducive to good sport, which tends to promote a healthy and virile race. Now that the Domain Board has inaugurated an enterprising scheme to form a sports stadium at Galloway Park, and intends to improve the grounds at the other various parks there is still strong opposition. The strongest objection is forthcoming from the Hamilton Amateur At! 'otic and Cycling Club (which, strange to remark, is one of the smallest numerically if not the smallest sporting body in the town), if we are to take the views recently stated to a Waikato Times representative by Mr A. 11. Malcolm, president of the club, as being expressive of that club. I can well remember a similar club (no doubt there probably are several members of the old club in the present one) putting forward some years ago a similar scheme to that now proposed for Galloway Park, and, mark you, at the same park, but the proposal was relunctantly dropped on account of the expense to be involved, through, I understand, the relief workers who were to be employed on the scheme refusing to carry out the work unless they received a full week’s work at the then standard rates of pay. If the venue of the stadium was suitable then, which was the dark days of depression, why then the change of front now that times are better and the expense of building the stadium is to be borne by others than the club ? Mr Malcolm’s remark that the plan of the stadium is an exact copy (with one exception—that there is an additional terrace to increase the capacity for spectators) of the plan lodged by his olub with the Hamilton Domain 'Board and. the Hamilton Borough Council is the most important statement he made, for to my mind it is the solution of the whole matter between his and other clubs and the Domain Board. He must not lose sight, of the fact that his club will not be the only sporting body to have use of the park, and the exception he refers to is probably the very reason why Hinemoa Park will not be accepted as a stadium, for spectators are to be catered for as well as athletes and their followers. Mr Malcolm points out that his club suggested a stadium for 15,000 spectators, as it believed that no sports body in Hamilton would require a larger one for some time to come. Mr Malcolm has either a most convenient memory or else he did not witness the Springbok-Waikato-King Country Rugby football match held last winter at Rugby Park under most adverse conditions. It rained practically throughout the match and some hours before it, yet there was an attendance of well over 15,000. and I venture to say, as a keen supporter and follower of "Rugby, that that number would have been increased by another 5000 *had the day been fine and the match played at a stadium such as that proposed for Galloway Park, where the sporting public would know they could have a reasonable view of the match under ideal conditions. For argument’s sake, say that no sport in Hamilton could receive a greater patronage than 15,000 (as suggested by Mr Malcolm) for some time to come. Why wait until that time comes to build a stadium to suit while in the meantime spending some thousands of pounds on a more or less temporary issue, whereas by spending not a great amount more a stadium for practically all time could be constructed? Which is the wiser expenditure? Economy as well as utility must be considered in these projects. He also mentions that if rate-payers’ money is to be invested in the stadium it is up to the sports bodies to make it pay; but this, in his opinion, or that of his club, could not be done if the stadium were placed so far away, nf course this is a matter of opinion, and Mr Malcolm is entitled to his view. As, I understand, ratepayers’ money is to be invested in this scheme, it must be borne in mind that it is not only the ratepayers of Hamilton who wili be contributing, but, also those of the counties contiguous to Hamilton. Therefore they, as spectators, should have equal chances, which they will have under the Galloway Park scheme, of viewing the various spoking fixtures in the years to come, l'or these outside ratepayer spectators have not the same opportunity, due to distances and occupation, of queueing up early at the gates prior to such fixtures. Might. I ask Mr Malcolm, does he suc-pest that the following stadiums do not pay as they are some distance from the centre of their respective towns: Western Springs Sladium, Auckland: Kilbirnie Stadium. Wellington; McLean Park, Napier; Cook's Gardens, Wanganui: Spriggens’ Park, Wanganui: Rugby Park. New Plymouth: and several more I could name? Rut. this is sufficient to make mv point. ‘if the facilities are provided, the distance reasonable and the stadium possesses easy access 'all three of which will pertain to Galloway Park), and the public wants the sport, the patronage will be forthcoming, and Mr Malcolm need have no qualms as to the paying aspect of the scheme. The remark Mr Malcolm makes in regard to the Winter Show Association purchasing a section as distant as Galloway Park has little nr no bearing on the matter, for the Show Association cannot be classed in the same category as sports bodies. Is it not a fact

that the association has been established a great number-of years? In those days, as the train was the major means of travel, the association’s move to secure accommodation near the rail was a wise one, in view of the fact also that exhibits had to be transported, whereas to-day this is not the case with the sporting public, who have only themselves to cater for and the motor-car is the accepted mode of travel. I also notice, Sir, in to-day’s issue of the Waikato Times three letters on the same topic, but as they are penned under noms-de-plume—“Old Woman,” “Disgusted” and “Green Tartan”—the only comment I can make, as I do not consider people writing under pen-names worthy of support or criticism (as they have not the courage of their convictions, otherwise they would disclose their identities), is that “Old Woman" should be “Disgusted” with “Green Tartan ” for poking his nose in Hamilton affairs when he is apparently residing at Auckland. To my mind it behoves all sporting bodies, barring none, instead of bickering over t.heir respective requirements, to pull together and support the Hamilton Domain Board in its proposal for a stadium at Galloway Park, as well as its suggested ground improvements to the various other parks, especially as it looks as if some financial support will be forthcoming from the Government,, which is sympathetic to the sporting movement of this country, as it' realises full well that a healthy people make for a healthy nation.—l am, etc., JUSTIN MILLS. Hamilton, February 27.