PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20954, 6 November 1939, Page 11

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. HAMILTON RETAILERS (To the Editor! Sir, —Some truly remarkable statements appear to have been made, according to your report, at the meeting of the Hamilton Retailers’ Association on Monday, October 30, but one statement caught my eye which must have brought forth peals of laughter from those who remember the last election and the situation as it -was then. I refer to the statement that many employees voted for Labour because they “thought there was a force behind them forcing their hand.” The only “force” that was applied in 1938 was that which compelled workers in various establishments to join the National Party, and in some cases actually had two shillings and sixpence deducted from their wages for the “privilege.” By these means the Hamilton branch of the National Party claimed over 7000 members, but unfortunately for the party the vote of the conscript member did not in every case follow his or her halfcrown, and the Labour candidate romped home. This, I think, will serve to disprove the contention of the retailer who made the aforementioned statement, and I would suggest to other retailers that since they depend for their livelihood on the wage-earner, their constant attacks on the workers’ Government are not very well advised. —I am, etc., A WORKER. Hamilton, November 4. MAN VERSUS THE STATE (To the Editor) Sir, —Said Mr Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court at Invercargill recently, when addressing the Grand Jury, “It is simply illusory to suggest that crime will disappear if the present economic system Is swept away and the State becomes the sole owner of all property and the sole controller of the means of production , and distribution.” No appreciation of “this statement of fact” is possible unless it is realised that the State, although “in” it is not a part of the economic organ • ism. Hence State control must limit the freedom of the individual. This “interference with natural liberty” then determines crime, because liberty is the mother of order. Throughout the gamut of existence from birth to death, what do we find? Mutuality, voluntary association for reciprocal action, in spite of State coercion and regimentation, can be felt everywhere and is ready and waiting to solve every problem of social intercourse, to decide every issue that arises in commerce and industry. The Socialist State is only of recent creation. Through its working process it has piled stone upon stone, adding one aggression unto another, until at last it has firmly entrenched itself in every nook and niche of society—nay, even in the brains and hearts of the people. The Socialist State cannot remain stationary, so in consequence it must expand until it reaches the very zenith of its power; then it falls by virtue of its own weight. Life in human society will go on not by means of an outside authority but by the power of the free contract based on codes relative to the rule of transaction.—l am, etc., HARRY WOODRUFFE. Auckland, November 3. GARDEN PLACE LOAN (To the Editor) • Sir, —With regard to the £10,500 loan proposal which is to come before the Hamilton ratepayers in the near future, I wonder if it is possible to get a clear idea what it is all about? I have made inquiries on numerous occasions of various people j (including councillors) but so far I | have been unable to grasp just exactly what is meant by the purchase of a site in Garden Place at the price stated above. The position as it appears to me is that the site already belongs to the borough; if that is so, then to whom is the £10,500 to be paid? If it is not owned by the borough it would be interesting to know who the owner is. I am assuming that the site in question is the centre portion which it was proposed to hand over to the Post Office, but which offer was, unfortunately for . Hamilton, turned down. If this is the site in question, then as it appears to me it has been the property of Hamilton since the first survey. If this is so. what is the idea of raising a loan to purchase it from some non-existent owner? Before ratepayers can cast an intelligent vote on the matter it certainly must be made much clearer than it is at present (at least to me). If it is a matter of relieving the special rating area of the special rate to that extent, that I can understand, and can agree with, but to “borrow” £10,500 with which to purchase something we already own and pay it to someone who does not exist seems to me high finance gone mad. As I am aware there are many more in the same mental haze as myself and really cannot grasp what is meant by this proposal, I would be glad if someone who does understand what the city fathers are driving at would be so good as to explain just ! what is meant by the proposal and ! to please put it in plain language so that the majority of the ratepayers will be able to judge for themselves and vote on the proposal knowing what they are doing. Could the following questions be answered in plain English:— (1) Who is the present owner of the site? (2) To whom, will the money bo paid if the site belongs to the borough? (3) Would not an adjustment of accounts in the borough office give the desired relief to the special rating area?—l am, etc., PERPLEXED. Hamilton, November 4. |