CONDENSED CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 242, 10 October 1916, Page 9

CONDENSED CORRESPONDENCE.

"Cruelty" protests against the method of getting rid of cats by putting them in sacks and throwing them from the Grafton Bridge.

' _AE_L" wishes to draw attention to the courtesy and kindness of Mr. 13. Harvey in packing, free of charge, hundreds of cakes ior soldiers.

S." A. Oates supports E. Gibson in her protest against the " injustice done to women" hy excluding them from the censorship of films. "Women represent two-thirds;of in picture theatres, so "surely l tlieir demand to he allowed to act _ censors is just.

" Disgusted" agrees with. " Spray Pump " on the Orchard Tax Act, and the Xurserymen's Registration Act. "There is no doubt whatever that these Acts will restrict the output of fruit—l know many elderly men who have for years added to their small incoWs from a few fruit trees, flowering plants, etc., and some poultry. There must he hundreds —if not thousands — of euch men in the Dominion, and many women too."

"L.M." writes in reply to our remark about the referendum in Australia. He agrees with the principle, but goes on to say: "If it is every citizen's business, why exempt any member of the community on account of age limit from the firing ranks ? If those above the age limit are permitted to vote that all those below the age limit shall toe the mark in the firing line and carefully exempt themselves from the same ordeal, where in is the democratic sentiment of equal treatment exemplified .under these circumstances? If it is a privilege, and I am certain it is, to defend one's native land, on what grounds of logic or Teason do these aged 'shirkers' claim the right to have a voice in deciding the issue for others when they are privileged parties themselves to the contract, and are secure against the decision that their vote may impose on their fellow-citizens? If this is your opinion of a democratic measure I hold few will endorse it."

"St. Julian" replies to Mr. Bloodworth, on the question of relations with Ger-| many after the war, and our correspondent says: "After all the 1 rightfulness , in Belgium, in France, 'in Serbia, m Montenegro; after the cold-blooded murders of women and children m cases like the iAisitania at sea, after the murder of j Miss Cavill; after the cowardly warfare made on -our kinsfolk by Zeppelins; after the diabolical introduction of poisonous, gas, it would be weakness and folly to ever trust these barbarians again. Oermany deliberately prepared to destroy | us, and should not be received or treated by us as a trustworthy friend. j Air. Edward Goulding Boden writes at great length on the same theme. He lavs:-" That memory will fail to record I crime that has shattered and ruthlessly torn humanity I will never believe . Indeed, I am constrained to •warn our I friend that all this hellish sorrow so apparent around us, never can and never will,' after the war,' bring Germany and I Britain in close brotherly amity — no Britisher worth -his salt will dare after the war,' attempt to palliate Germany ■. diabolical deeds, much less dwell in concord together." Further on, Mr. Boden says: "With regard to powerful nations 'never repeatedly going to war with each other,' all the facts of history are against our friend. As a student of history I respectfully «■«-*»■ *££ worth recall to memory Egypt, .<*««-• Persia, Rome, Babylon, Britain and France, Germany and France, Russia and Turkey, Goth and Vandal, the Thirty Years' War, the Seven Years'War-Wars of the Roses, Spanish Wars. The war situation means for decades to come ruin and death to Belgium and Serbia It rightly implies universal hatred ot Germany and all things German In view of the misery it has caused, and will cause, where is the justice or moral sense in pleading for amity after tne war?