PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20986, 13 December 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. SOLDIERS’ GRATITUDE (To the Editor) Sir, —On behalf of the sth Field Park Coy., Divisional Engineers, N.Z.E., we wish to show our gratitude in thanks to the residents of Hamilton and surrounding districts for the many great kindnesses tendered us during our stay at the Hopu Hopu Military Camp.—We are, etc., 2521 SAPPER D. WATKINS. 2423 SAPPER J. G. BROOKES. 2402 SAPPER I. MARUSICH. Papakura, December 11. THE PARTY LEADER (To the Editor) Sir, —The theories of Mr J. A. Lee have been reported in your columns, and these expressions by a Minister are not in good taste at this juncture. Although Mr Lee quotes three prominent men, now deceased, in three distinct countries, is it possible that the writer of the article has another person in view, a leader who is still alive? It is known that the leader of the Labour Party, Mr Savage, has been a sick man. It is also admitted that Mr Savage has done remarkably well, politically, from his point of view. It is also known that Mr Lee has strong views upon certain subjects that do not coincide with the views of his leader.

Surely, sir, even in politics, loyalty is an essential virtue, and from reading Mr Lee’s article it appears that certain members of the party in question are not behind their leader. Sympathy must go out to the Prime Minister in these difficult times if he has to contend with an atmosphere akin to that shown by one of his henchmen.—l am, etc., NON-PARTY. Hamilton, December 12. FARMERS’ PROBLEMS (To the Editor) Sir, —In your report of last Monday’s meeting at Claudelands, Mr A. J. Sinclair is reported as follows: “The farmer has only two methods by which he can adjust his position—either his costs must be lowered or his price must be increased. The farmer infinitely prefers the first method—a reduction in his costs. He knows that there is a deficit in the dairy industry account of approximately £2,000,000, and that this money has "been paid to him by the issue of notes from the Reserve Bank with not. a vestige of production to support the payment.” The writer has never received payment in notes for dairy produce. Has anyone else? Mr Sinclair then makes the remarkable statement that, “There is not a vestige of production to support the payment”—above overseas prices presumably. Is not the payment to dairy producers supposed to be on the costs of production? Do not the farmers generally consider that the price is inadequate to meet internal costs? If the payment to dairy farmers is based on costs of production, by what stretch of the imagination can it be said that “there is not a vestige of production to back the issue of money”? As a would-be exponent of farmers’ difficulties, the writer would advise Mr Sinclair to a more careful study of the position; otherwise he will do more harm than good. —I am, etc., R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, December 11. ABILITY NOT UTILISED (To the Editor)

Sir, —Attention has been drawn to the statesmanlike attitude of the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates on the war situation, and the question naturally arises why a man so versed in New Zealand’s affairs in peace and in war, so obviously zealous in a really patriotic way, and withal so capable a politician and administrator, should be languishing in a more or less impotent Opposition capacity. Surely if New Zealand is to progress economically and is to make the most effective contribution to the wsr, men of such ability as Mr Coates should be given an opportunity to give their utmost service to their fellow men. I know the answer will be, from some quarters, that Mr Coates is a shell-backed Tory and was responsible, with his colleagues, for the severity of the last depression, and that many other uncharitable things will be said against him. In reply I say that most of the opposition to Mr Coates is due to purely political prejudice and to a rank misunderstanding of the man. There may be a fear that if Mr Coates were given some responsibility in the administration of the country there would be a tendency to return to the conditions of the “bad old days.” I say this is nonsense. Mr Coates and many others have learned a great deal from years of political and administrative experience, and, incidentally, he has been responsible for a great deal of the country’s real progress.

As an example of Mr Coates’ foresight and business acumen, the Dominion’s hydro-electric system might be mentioned. When Mr Coates was Minister of Public Works, and subsequently when he attained an even higher position, the hydro-electric system was one of his chief hopes and interests. The result is that today New Zealand has a system of power supply unexcelled anywhere in the world. It is the most successful of all Government undertakings, an excellent producer of revenue, and a source from which in the years to come the country will collect rich dividends. I repeat that if the party system of politics keeps this man out of a posi - tion where he can give of his best to his country, then party politics are stupid and futile indeed. New Zealand needs qualities of leadership, experience, sympathy and thinking power. Mr Coates possesses those qualities, and I can see no reason why they should not be placed at the disposal of the country.—l am, etc., NON-POLITICAL. Cambridge, December 12.

MASS MEETING

(To the Editor) Sir,—Being one who has an interest in the welfare of this, country, may I ask you for a little space in your paper to add my protest against the mass meeting held at Claudelands last Monday, organised by the two left wings of the Nationalist Party, the Chamber of Commerce and the Farmers’ Union, and the Retailers' Association in particular in the Waikato district. The funniest part about this mass meeting is that when the Coalition Government was in power, led by Mr Forbes as Prime Minister and Mr Coates as Minister of Finance, it in 1930 reduced the purchasing power of the workers and the pensions. The retailers and merchants, with the goods on the shelves of their shops and stores, wanted for buyers, and the farmers were unable to sell their butterfat, etc., through the slashing of wages and pensions by the Coalition Government, which many of these so-called retailers, merchants and farmers supported. Yet they never raised a voice in protest; nor did they have mass meetings as they are having these days. While we today, along with the British Government and the Empire, are waging a war with such mighty nations as Germany and Russia, I ask. are there not import restrictions in other parts of the world as well

as here? What is all this wailing I about? It is quite evident that these particular bodies in and around Hamilton which are always railing at the Government in regard to import restrictions are not thinking of the war ’ overseas, where people are being J slaughtered. All they are concerned [ with is their pockets and how much 3 profit they can make at other people’s ) expense. ’ I would like to ask the chambers ; of commerce and the Retailers’ Association, did not Mr Forbes restrict ■ goods during the depression by holding them back from the people? You ’ may ask how did he, Mr Forbes, do \ ! that. Well, let me explain how. i ' j You retailers, you merchants, had ' your stores and shops full of re- i ; I stricted goods, and the people could i ! not buy because they had no money | i | ' to buy with. I ‘ j There are a lot of goods imported i j from overseas which could be manu- ; ; factured and produced in this coun- < . j try, but we never had a Government < : to launch out in that direction until I the present Government came into - power to take on the job. I take off 1 my hat to Mr Savage and his col- ‘ leagues for doing that job. £ I would also like to ask the shop ( assistants how, as they say, they are 1 helping their employers in regard to the import restrictions if they get their wages reduced. They are not helping their employers by any ] means. The employers are out to ] get wages reduced and the hours j longer to suit themselves. < So why all this wailing at the Gov- j

ernment today about import restrictions when Britain herself is importing and restricting goods? For instance, Britain today has restricted the import of fruit from New Zealand because there is no space on the ships for it. We may as well say the fruit merchants should go wailing at the Government. I say no; let us all sacrifice a little, and pull together with the Government until such time as the obstacles arc removed; then business will proceed. —I am, etc., ANTI-INDIVIDUALISM. Hamilton, December 11.