PIONEERING THE PUMICE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 2, Issue 39, 21 March 1940, Page 30

PIONEERING THE PUMICE

To the Editor, "The Listener" Sir,-I would not have ventured again to trouble you, but both your reviewer and the criticism of "Effigy" give the impression that my book contains matter repulsive to modern thought. ‘This is by no means correct. " Pioneering the Pumice" is what it professes to be-a straightforth account of the struggle and the achievement of proving the suitability for close settlement of the huge central plateau of the North Island-the greatest area of habitable and cultivated land in the Dominion. I make no excuse for brief allusions to other subjects. They illuminate and enliven the book, while the chapters on such subjects as the Maoris, afforesta-

tion, and the work of development, are the result of much study and lengthy practical experience. ; Nor do I offer any apology for decided opinions. The great undertaking in which I was engaged required a sound knowledge of many things, as well as a well-balanced, decided, and bold mind, I fear that my ridicule on the equality of man may have offended some. But the equality of man is the greatest lie ever invented, and is even now bringing democracy to ruin. I could say much of the hundred years’ struggle between the two Islands, in which the South has always succeeded in securing the lion’s share through the complaisance of Auckland. A professor in an American University has just written to me most enthusiastically about the book. He says: " Your book should be on every New Zealand bookshelf, for it is a most valuable and original human document." This gentleman is a professor of sociology, and was recently in Auckland making investigations. Yours, ete.,

E. EARLE

VAILE

Auckland, March 5, 1940.

To The Editor, "The Listener" Sir,-It is seldom nowadays that we find such a charmingly unblushing conservative as your correspondent, E. Earle Vaile-at least few of them are so bluntly outspoken in print, whatever they are in private. So let us have another tilt at him. He has guaranteed his ability and willingness to instruct. Here, then, is a problem to tax his logical faculties. He says in effect that he cannot visualise prosperity with sanctity of contract abolished. Let us take the case of the Allied war debts. As Coolidge said, in the simplicity of his conservative business mind, " They hired the money, didn’t they?" But what happened? First of all, Britain and the other debtor nations were granted a moratorium (has Britain granted New Zealand a moratorium "for the duration"?), and then the whole question of repaying the debt was quietly forgotten, In other words, Britain tacitly repudiated her liabilities. To add insult to injury, she proceeded to devalue her currency and by abandoning the gold standard altogether managed to recapture these overseas markets which the United States had entrenched on in the war years. If that does not represent prosperity with the sanctity of contract abolished, I, for one, would like to know what it is. But, of course, when a Liberal or Labour Government finds difficulty in repaying the liabilities incurred by its predecessors in office it is termed spendthrift and bankrupt, whereas, when a conservative financial policy demands repudiation on a colossal scale, exchange manipulation is lauded as economic genius. It’s all in the political point of view. For myself, I do not like breach of contract, but it does seem like good business. Most of our difficulties arise from the fact that good business is so very, very seldom good morality. Yours, etc.,

LOCKSLEY

HALL

Auckland, March 1, 1940.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS " Interested ’’.-One and the same.