IN THE PUBLIC MIND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 283, 30 November 1931, Page 6

IN THE PUBLIC MIND.

ROAD COSTS.

WHAT THE MOTOR PAYS. J

(To the Editor.)

One may sympathise with the Railways Department in its efforts to make expensive "political" branch railways pay, without accepting the arguments put forward by Mr D. Kodie, commercial manager of our railways' concerning road competition. In an interview' Mr. Rodie is reported in your issue of the 25th inst. to have said that the motqr vehicle pavg for about a quarter of the damage it does to the roads. On the other hand, the Transport Department's first report issued a year a»o contains the following: "It is believed by°a number of authorities that the measure of special motor taxation should be the difference between what may be regarded as the normal aggregate of road expenditure, as judged by pro-motor days, when the State and local authorities provided the annual maintenance and capital charges, and the construction money was generally, as now, found out of loans, and the present expenditure. Applying the average expenditure for the decade, 1910° 20, due allowance being made for fluctuations in the value of money, it would appear that the normal expenditure, excluding the increase due to motor transport, would be in the vicinity of £2,800,000. Excluding loan expenditure, the road expenditure during the year ended March 31, 1929, amounted to approximately £5,700,000, leaving approximately £2,900,000 as an estimate of the additional expenditure duo to motor traffic. Special motor taxation in the form of license fees, lines, etc., petrol tax, tyre tax and heavy traffic fees amounted to approximately £1,470,000 in. 1928-9 and to £1,780,000 in 1929-30. Customs duties and primage on motor vehicles and parts aggregated £1,332,000 in 1929-30." From this it would appear that the total taxation paid by motor vehicles is approximately equal to their full share of the cost of roads, not one quarter, as stated by Mr. Eodie. W. ARTHUR GRAY.

INTEREST. "E.N.D." overlooks the fact that in crude interest there is an element in the nature of an insurance premium against risk, in addition to the pure interest. In my illustration •I eliminated the element of risk by postulating that the purchaser was satisfied as to the ultimate value of the jokes. Crusoe would discount his future raisins even more if there was a risk of their going mouldy. Like "E.KD.," "Free Speech" does not realise that loan interest is but one species of interest, and usury or loans for consumption but one class of loan interest. Borrowing by spendthrifts, and the necessitous for consumption, at exorbitant rates, .is rightly condemned. Borrowing for production, by the able entrepreneur, or by the young for education, is not reprehensible. My point is that interest is the inevitable result of man's psychological make-up. He is impatient, discounts the future, and prefers present spending power to future spending power. How many of us are looking forward as keenly to next year's vacation as we are to this year's? Would we forego a week's holiday this year for a week in 1941 ? Interest is the price of impatience, but it is also the reward of patience. If a spendthrift cannot get present spending power by borrowing he can get it by selling, and the buyer will earn interest. If we wish, to lighten the burden of interest we must learn to regard the future more highly. It'is necessary also to remove those conditions which, cause us by sheer necessity to sacrifice the future for the salve of the present/euch as unemployment and war. ECONOMIST.

GALATEA SETTLEMENT. The statement made by the Minister of Lands at Eotorua to the effect that the pumice belt offers greater opportunities than any other land in New Zealand is in my opinion exaggerated to a point of ridiculousness. The expenditure necessary to bring this land to the-productive capacity is out of all proportion to the ultimate returns and value, andl venture to say that the actual cost would, in comparison to other lands, be in excess of 100 per cent. The Government has now decided to finance settlers on this land up to the extent of £1250, and I maintain that this sum will prove inadequate. The same result will be attendant as in the Guthrie settlement. Settlers through prohibitive costs of breaking in will be compelled either to join the ranks of the unemployed or face bankruptcy. The Minister regrets the lack of confidence displayed in regard to Galatea, even by those who possess faith in Eotorua land. This is not surprising when the geological and climatic aspect is considered. Land situated at such a high altitude is susceptible to heavy frosts and the quality of the land is such that it would not incite enthusiasm, even from the most optimistic. It is stated that at the original price, £4 10/ per acre, it is some of the cheapest land in New Zealand. Being thoroughly conversant with the district, I emphatically stated that there is no comparison with land obtainable in the Bay of Plenty, King Country and North Auckland, which can be acquired from 30/ an acre, where everything is in favour for settlement, and under_ these circumstances I consider the price paid for Galatea exorbitant, also viewing the unnecessary expenditure on roading, approximately £lob,ooo, one cannot but realise the waste ot public money on this comparatively useless land. Although the Minister denies the possibility of the cost per settler being £300U, I shall be agreeably surprised if it does not exceed this amount. Q. R. CREAGH..

NETS IN THE GULF. Mr. Endean and "Surf" are perhaps two of Auckland's most esteemed citizens, but as authorities on the possible extinction of tne snapper they have yet a lot to learn. I have no doubt that these people base their assertions on the results of occasional pleasure trips around the harbour. If anybody inquires into the matter fully they will find that snapper are so plentiful at present that tn fishing boats have to be limited in tlieir catches, the markets being unable to cope with the supply. I have it on good authority that an Auckland fishing boat caught one ana a half tons of snapper laat week in two ana a half hours. This does not seem to be any indication of a scarcity of snapper.

FARMERS' UNION AND THE COALITION. Sir James Parr, in hie reply to my statement re the above, has fallen into the enp of assuming that the resolution paesed oy the Dominion executive of the Farmers Lnw included a promise of support by the union. It included no such promise, being woraeu exactly as quoted by me. It appears as -i Sir James has confused the remarks ot»» mover and seconder with the resolution itse • Moreover, if there had been a promise, w» executive would have been acting in a ve J inconsistent manner, as it has always p fessed to be non-political so far as P a - politics are concerned. I wonder how a Jamei as a solicitor, would view a d 1 1'"",, from (He Uw Society as to how he stioui vote, or would a merchant be considered aw loyal if he disobeyed a like direction frora »" executive of the Associated Chambers of toi merco. Fanners are in the same position wr i regard to the Dominion executive « ll Farmers' Union. This is the crux of the mai ter, but Sir James, wisely for hi* contention ignores it altogether. A. A. huso.