CORRESPONDENCE

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 143, 18 June 1888, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

COACH-BUILDEES AND THE TARIFF. —Wo have two more letters on this subject—one from Mr Edwin Harvie and one from Mr James Tait; but as they do not appear to advance any new point, we see no object in pursuing the discussion while numbers of letters on other current topics are waiting a chance of insertion.

No Room in the Refdge.— Mr W. E Browne, Epsom, writes : "Now that the football mania has somewhat subsided and people can probably bestow a little thought upon the minor consideration of a poor old man's sufferings, will you kindly spare a corner for the contemplation of the case of Wm. Burns, who is now undergoing a sentence of three months' hard labour for the crime of being an outcast of society for whom there is " no room in the Old Men's Refuge.' 'The hoai*y head is a crown of glory,' writes the wisest of men of the ancient times. Grey hairs, linked with poverty, in the modern wisdom of Auckland is the reverse ; so in this age of Christian benevolence, at this period when the young and hearty are leaving our shores because work is scarce, this poor, decrepit, infirm old man is sent to hard labour for being friendless, homeless, and a-hungered. It is late now to discuss the present sentence; but as to the future, granted he survives the rigour of prison life, and is again thrown upon the tender mercies of this considerate world, what are his prospects ? Undoubtedly, from the dissensions at the Board, the accommodation at the Refuge will not be increased, and unless by death or otherwise a vacancy take's place, nothing but prison bars and hard labour await this supernumerary supplicant for pity. In London, although that city is provided with refuges for the aged in the shape of almshouses, workhouses, etc., for cases of emergency to each Police Court a poor box is established. Would it not be possible to apply such a system here, and thus avoid the odium attached to such cases as the above ? for, certainly, as we can afford to spend. hundreds of pounds upon football in less than a week's time, a few shillings now and again to help those that cannot help themselves would bear their own reward."

The Fishekiks Act. —Mr Jos. Lowndes writes : ' Through the courtesy of F. J. Moss, Esq., M.H.R., I have received &■ copy of the above Act, and having gone through it allow me to make a few remarks thereon. Like its predecessors, it is an Act intended to regulate an important industry, but, sir, in my humble opinion, the Government are about to give the death blow to one branch, and that is the oyster trade. The Act proposes to lease the oyster grounds, and to license all persons engaged in the industry. The result will be that the "grounds will be secured by a ring or syndicate, or whatever else you like to call them, to tho, oxclusion of the

men who have for many f^ paj worked the ground and supplied tfc? nunkeb with cheap oysters. Everything n)*"™' seems to be falling into th<s J> >*f* <* capitalists-timber, coal, gold, *»$; *ng now even, tho fishes of the sea, W.hat is there left for the poor man ? Whay/">!» has he now for himself and his chila.je^ '. No hope; nothing left for the toilers of Wksea but crushing legislation—one law for the Maori lord of the soil, and another tor the poorwhite. And haa itcome to this, that whilst our people are leaving these shores as though a plague had fallen upon us and the Government are admitting Chinese to fcake the places of our own kith and kin, whilst efforts are being made to induce Highland crofters to come here to start a fishing industry and to enter into competition with those already here, the Government are imprisoning and fining men who by gathering oysters are working to live ? Sir Julius Vogel got an Act passed, the title of which is "Fisheries Encouragement" —charming sound—but, sir, that Bill only; benefited a few who could afford to cure fish for export. If Mr Rees will take a few copies of the Fisheries Bill with him and let the crofters and others know what to expect on arrival here, they would think twice before coming. What I would suggest is that the members of Parliament improve that bill out of existence altogether. All that is required is a few simple regulations. The oyster grounds being made into say four divisions, allow each division to be worked alternately for a year or two. Limit the export to mud and shore oysters, putting an export duty on them sufiicient to cover cost of supervision, &c. Let the grounds be free to those who choose to find employment for i themselves to maintain their families and j others dependent) on them, as they havoj, been in the past, and instead of discontent and anxiety, the fishennon's life might be a happy one."

The New Zealand Flag.--"H.W.5.," writing with regard to Mr G. P. Pierces remarks on the " Standard of New Zealand," sa y S: —" New Zealand has no ' Standard ' apart from that of the empire, nor haa any other colony; and G.P.P. is in error when he says ' the blue ensign of Victoria floats over the forts and Government vessels of this colony when there is a recognised New Zealand flag.' TheGovernmentflagof all the colonies is the same-the blueensign of Britain with a distinguishing emblem adapted and suited to each particular one, stars in varying numbers, a lion, an elephant, beaver, etc., etc. That for New Zealand has five stars arranged as the Southern CrodS. Forts and buildings should fly the Union Jack, same as England. The red ensign belongs to the mercantile marine all the empire over. It is true New Zealand and one or two other colonies have adopted an adulterated or travestied copy of the white ensign of Britain, but it is merely an 'amateur or fancy flag,' and is not recognised either by the Home Government or by any foreign country. Any ship flying it, as a national colour at sea, would be liable to be seized and condemned as a pirate by the first man-of-war she met."

Re the Early - Closing Agitation.— "Poor, Struggling Suburban Shopkeeper " sends a long letter on this subject. He says :—" It's a bit out of ray province to write letters for insertion^ in public newspapers, being a poor, struggling suburban shopkeeper, and finding my time fully occupied in looking after my own business in order to make ends meet. I should certainly have let the present occasion go by, only that it seems to me that now the agitators are carrying it too far, and the whole thing is being misrepresented to those of our members of the House of Representatives who have beencalledupon to use theirinfluence and so get this arbitrary Bill passed and made law just to suit a few over-reaching, over-anxious town tradesmen. Your correspondent, or rather the "Herald's," expressed in his simple argument just ray own opinion to a nicety, viz., that to compel the suburban shopkeepers to close at the uniform hour with Queenstreet meant driving «cill the small business to the larger firms, whicli I have no hesitation in saying is the sole object and motive aimed at by the Queen-street tradesmen, and the so-called philanthropic spirit which was supposed to be the motive to arouse public sympathy will be lost in the distance, and conspicuous by its absence, and us suburban shopkeepers laughed at for our short-sightedness in not being able to see this when it is too late. One thing is very evident. Queen-street tradesmen have a slight desire for the evening trade done in the suburbs after 6 o'clock, no matter whether it be drapers, grocers, or butchers; we have had all trades represented, but have found to their sorrow the plunder was not so great after all. One of the commonest remarks for to hear is, ' How on earth do we all make a living ?' This question is easily answered—stick to your business, mind your own affairs, live within your means. Suburban business in every large town is, of necessity, on the late. - hour principle. Take our own city for example. There are thousands of people who come into Queensfcreefc daily by every possible means of locomotion — steamer*, ships, trains, 'busses, tramcars, horseback, etc., etc. —some to merely buy a souvenir of the place, others to seli their produce and spend the returns, of which we suburban shopkeepers know nothing and see,nothing. And equally so on thetother hand we are unknosvn to them, so that after 6 o'clock—say, between 7 and 9—when business is suspended in town, we are beginning to pick up a few crumbs from among our own immediate neighbourhood, who, in a sense, are compelled to do their shopping in the suburbs, but who, on the other hand, if forced to make their purchases before 6 o'clock, would go to town to swell the returns of those who already do 75 per cent, of the whole turnover. Suburban shopkeepers, who speak candidly and have had any experience at all, know only too well, and that to their sorrow, what the trum cars have done for us. We can ill afford to be compelled to shut up at 6 o'clock. It is a well-known fact that goods of every description can be bought in the suburbs at from 10 to 20 per cent, cheaper than in town, more especially among those, tradesmen who are under small expense, who omploy' no assistants, but run the business in their own family, But even this powerful argument in favour of some businesses is nothing more than water on a duck's back. It's part and parcel of a woman, if she has money to spend in the purchase of apparel, to go where she can see the largest assortment, and no matter if she paid 20 per cent, more for the self-same article above that which she could purchase it in the suburbs, she would go ; and simply because it came out of so-and-so's shop, it follows of,a necessity that it must be cheap and must bo right. This all comes about b^ the public not being judges in the majority of cases. If suburban shopkeepers are compelled to close at 6 o'clock, I see nothing but throwing up the sponge, speaking.as Ido from a long and tried experience, against terrible odds, too, during nearly nine years. For if to-day I .have anything above' that which I brought into the country (and I think I have) I have acquired the same by sticking at it from morn till night, living strictly within my means, and minding my own affairs."

To the Editor : Sir,—l noticed in a late issue of your paper a letter signed "Argus," in which it is stated that a Government staff surveyor and party hare been engaged for the last three or four months surveying the- late Hon. J. Williamson's estate at Hamilton. In making this statement it seems to me that " Argus " brings a very grave charge against the present Go^ vernmenc, and one that should be promptly refuted. It is a well-known fact that all landowners with Crown grant titles desirous of having their land registered under the Land Transfer Act o£ 1870, should first)

have a re-survey made, invariably afc their own expense, by a licensed surveyor. _ In many cases settlers have been forced into this expense when they could ill afford it. It seems particularly bard, then, that such an exception should be made. I can scarcely conceive that this has been done, and prefer to suppose that "Argus" has been misinformed. I trust that someone in authority, and with a knowledge of the circumstances, will not allow a charge of sut-'h gross partiality against the Government to remain uncontradicted. —I am, e t c Scandalum Magkaium. Auckland, June iith, 1888.