CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19645, 14 June 1929, Page 11

CORRESPONDENCE.

-_5 ;orr * s P t ' o, "enti who do cot coaplv with , r . ru!es set out in the last coltimn of our tbcir'leuefs. WIU eiCU5e U " ir ° m 30ticin = SOUTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK. TO THE EDiroa Or THB FSESS. Sjr ) —Sir Joseph Ward is layiug great stress on the completion of the Wharenui to Parnassus railway, and by all accounts it is going to be built along the sea coast. He and the Minister for Lands talk endlessly on closer settlement. I would venture to say that I ' r ."!P. to Kaikoura, a distance ot 38 miles, will not put one more settler on the land. Why has Waiau to Kaikoura never been" discussed? I knew holdings on this route that individually use more manures and produce more wool than all the settlers put together on the sea coast route. Failing Waiau to Kaikoura the only other logical route is Parnassus through the Green Hills, which would still open up a vast expanse of country. It is to be hoped that before Sir Joseph is allowed to spend this enormous amount of money, the far-seeing business people of Christciiurch will take thi.- matter up, and inspect the possibilities of the inland Waiau-Kai-koura road.—Yours, etc., WAIAU ROAD. June 13th, 1929. FARMERS AND THE UNEMPLOYED. TO IHE EDITOB (Jg TUB PSE33. Sir,- —I have been wondering where all thtse so-called unemployed hide when there is work offering. I recently advoitised in two papers for a ploughman, and got one application. Again last vvetrk-end, I advertised iu all four papers for a general farm-hand, and did not get a single reply. It is very amusing to read in the letter by "L.A.Z.Y.," in Monday's Press, that farmers pay from 5s to 25a per week for single men. This, vi eourse, is absolutely untrue. 1 have ne\er employed a single man under 30s per week and usually pay 85s to 40s per week. To a plough - man 1 never pay less than 40s. But how can we expect men to go out into the country for x2 per week, when the City Council is offering 34s per day in the town. As regards the response to my advertisements, 1 ?.m willing to verify these .statements to any City Councillor. — Y'ours, etc., PARMER. Jnne 13th, 192S>.

TO TH!i EDITOR OF THB JfRESS. Sir, —I trust you will grant ins space to reply to a letter signed "L.A.Z.Y." in yesterday's issue of your paper. The greater part of this letter is simply rot, and sounds more like the vapourings of some union agitator than the words of an honest worker. He challenges mo to cite a single instance of a farmer paying 14a per day to his men, which I accept by giving him the cases of two men in my own employ. One of my men is paid 15s 4d (fifteen shillings and fourpence) per day, and another I6s, these men of course being workers and not wasters. One man has just retired after 50 years' service with my father and myself, aud the man who receives 15s 4d per day is still with me after 4(5 years' continuous service. I have paid lhis latter man over £6OOO in i'ard cash besides his keep. If this is Bolshevism by all means let it come. There is one point that ''L.A.Z.Y." and myself quite agree upon, and that is that I am truly thankful I live in New Zealand and not in Australia, for in the latter country Labour has just about killed industry, what with strikes, go-slow, intimidation, and so-called arbitration. In Queensland after 14 years of Labour Government the farmers were nearly ruined through being unable to pay the high wages set by the Arbitration Court, and therofore having to carry on without labour whilst thousands of men were swagging along the roads. The fact that Sir Joseph Ward said before the election that he intended to pay the unemployed 14s per day does not make it any better, but rather worse, being very close to bribery and corruption. —Yours, etc., COCKATOO. June 13th, 1929.

LAKE ELLESMBRE DRAINAGE. TO THTS ZMTO* C * «"3. Sir, —It is most-interesting to me to read " Buler 'b '' letter in your paper upon the above subject. I w ' eil remember in 1867 Mr Edward Jollie, Provincial Secretary, and 3fr Hardy Johnstone, C.E., made a -report to the Provincial Council that the only way to drain the lake wa6 to open, a channel from the Maori pah (Taumuta) and drain into the Little Rakaia, and pass thence to the Rakaia mouth. It has been found that a permanent "outlet from the lake or the small lagoon through the shingle bank into the sea is most unsatisfactory, and every hard sou'-wester closes the opening; also the pipes outlt suffers in the same wav. This v,-as the case when the late Mr P. H. Hill and Mr E. Washbourne spent a large sum in draining their own lagoon. I have no idea what the cost of running the lake into the Little Rakaia would be to-day, but I think from memory the estimate in 1867 was about £2OOO. —Yours, etc., WILLIAM D. LAWRENCE. June 13th, 1929.

THE APPRENTICES ACT. TO TSZ EDITOB OP THE PBESS. Sir, —I read in this morning's issue of your paper a contribution of opinion relative to the above question in your correspondence column by G. T. Jones, who first of all utters a cry which gives one visions of Italian organ-grinders, German sausage, or French guillotines: "Viva la Mr D. Jones, M.P." Not having any grudge against Mr Jones, M.P., as a man, who is also a Reform politician, I do not wish him to oblivion, and feel quite safe ia echoing the acclamation. What Mr G. T. Jones meant to convey, though, was that he heartily endorsed Mr D. Jones's sentiments re the apprentice question to farmers, and I want to tell*Mr G. T. Jones that I thoroughly "disagree" with them. Mr G. T. Jones opines that the Apprentice Act must be amended or smashed by some means because he considers, apparently, that it is the nightmare of parents of boys (or girls) leaving school. Might I ask both Mr Jones's what was in operation relative to this question of training boys prior to the inception of the "Act" which was made law during the regime of the Massey Government 1 ? Was the legislation in existence prior to the "Act" any different from that' embodied in the "Act" and Apprentice Orders under the "Act"? Can he tell us if amendments that have been made to both Aet and Orders have been dictated by agitators, or v,-ere they agreed upon by committees consisting of as many employers as there are of workers, who are not agitators'? Does he not think that (Dad), the parent, or guardian, is just as much entitled to a job in Ms Homeland as his offspring, or is all his venom and ardour poured forth iu the advocacy of cheap labour? Both the Mr Jones's know that unemployment exists (or are they suffering from an obsession), and that being so, why confine the remarks relative to employment to the youth alone? Surely "dad" a-nd the prospective "dads'" are our kith and kin, just as much as the offspring now and to come, and are entitled to equal attention! When Mr G. T. Jones has answered the above queries by publishing the actual facts, he may then be of the same opinion as I am, i.e., that there is no harm whatever to the community in exclaiming, "Long live Mr D. Jones, MP.." but there is a good deal of damage being done to the interests of the community when that expression carries with it support and advocacy of a Parliamentary machine that creates unemp'ovment not only for the boys, but for "the boys' fathers. The Parliamentary machine which introduced the Act can be held to be largely responsible for the present state ot the Labour market, and our Mr D. Jones knows that, if Mr G. T. Jones does not, and that this position has been'created "Labour Bosses and Agitation not-withstanding.-YourS,Tetc.kußgToN: .Trades Hall, June 13th, 1929.

KING'S THANKSGIVING FUND. TO THE EDITOB OS THE PRESS. Sir—Regarding the King's Thanksgiving Fund. In your issue of yesterday you reported that excellent Association's meeting (Nurse Maude's), and Lady Ehodes's suggestion that funds should be collected on lines similar to those for hospitals in the Old Country. I feel sure the chairman -will pardon me. for pointing out a great in the method suggested at Home and here. In the Old Land the money is given by generous donors in very large sums ont of gratitude. lam certain if wealthv individuals would consult their solicitors and ascertain what death duties will be levied upon their estate they would be more willing to give during their own liveß. To endow Nurse Maude's Association and provide a small superannuation for her and her workers would be too small a'mm for the great thanksgiving for his Majesty's restoration. The orphanages of our churches should, be put on a sound footing, and our soldiers should not go in need. Departmental sympathy for men in distress seems not very evident, and a fund to assist m the interim would save much disappointment and sorrow. It is not only suggested that the rich should give, but that opportunity should be afforded the whole community to contribute to the great Thanksgiving Fund. Much praver was offered in our great Cathedral for our King's recovery, and our gratitude for answer to such prayer should take a tangible and substantial form as euggested. Christchurch m the past has lagged behind the other cities in the matter of generous response to urgent appeals or this nature. Could not this be remedied in this casef-Youra, etc., LOTALIST . June 13th, 1929PS— Becentlv the Returned Soldiers benefited by £25,000 from a deceased estate.