Letters to The Editor

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20920, 29 July 1933, Page 7

Letters to The Editor

rv,rr'.'.-p"".'l<: ■■ - •''■> r,o! * " h o'jr rale. .."'. o« in t'' r Nf f column of nur I.'"'irl"r Fn/M v ill i'iru-0 us fmm ijotiirm; i'h.-ir Uv.oy:-. Qijci-.- i■ ("n-riiMiiit i - Yom- lean n not relcTHE I'AUTY SYSTK.M IN THE CITY ( 01 NCH.. hi lii'i £.!i;t.'K o? 'fuu i-hess. Su\-Not lor long have the citizens of C'liristchurrh taken .such a keen and critical interest m the nomgs of the City Council as at. present. 'Chat is due, of course, to the nnd it has made upon the funds of the Municipal Electricity Deportment, for a sum of £15.000 to enable it to carry out the political programme of the Labour majority. 1 will not discuss that, iniquitous and, as 1 think, immoral proceeding. That course of plundering has been sanctioned by the council and my purpose here is to emphasise again the manner in which the odious business was carried through. Councillor McCornbs lias always been strongly opposed to such a course. 1 quote from "The Press" report. Site said:—"The most serious part of the proposal was the suggestion to seize £15.000 of electricity funds. . . . There were many reasons why the electricity funds should not be touched. .In any event she did not believe it was legal to exploit the consumers of electricity for the purpose of relieving the rates." Councillor Thurston said that it. it wo? right tu raid the Municipal Electricity "Department funds then it was right to raid them for the whole of the work, including the reconstruction of liiccarton avenue. If it was wrong to raid them, not one penny piece should be touched. . . . He wished to emphasise the question of principle. The Mavor asked Councillor McCornbs and the other members to stand bv the understanding reached'. Councillor Archer characterised the transfer of land to the Municipal Electricity Department in return for the £15.000, compulsorily taken as a "siinter." , . ~ , , What, was the unshot ot these frank expressions of opinion? When the division was taken, Councillors McCornbs, Thurston, and Archer voted for the transaction they had denounced. Why" The answer is obvious. rne viciousness of the party system was being exhibited. Official Labour voted in a block, ts it any wonder that the New Zealand Lesion has entered the held to rouse the people to free themselves from this tyranny that drives political party members like sheep and makes them vote against their judgment and the public interest whenever the party demands it. The council has given a graphic illustration of the party system in action.--Yours, ctc " NON-PARTY. July 28, lf';«. THE WOOLSTON HOARDING. TO ni-U EDITOR OP THE I'RESS. Sir.—-It was extremely strange to observe Cr. Arc'.-er advising the residents of Woolston to secure an injunction against the decision of the City Council. It was thought that such work was best left to the so-called aristocrats, or members of the Citizens' Association. The cost of the last injunction and its consequences are still being carried by the citizens. Cr. Archer's attitude seems to nic to be contrary to all democratic principles. If a minority of any body advises injunctions against the decision of the majority, then good-bye to social progress. Does Cr. Archer admit that the new council had a right to grant or withhold a permit'.' No. I am not a resident of Woolston or Christchurch, and the same thing applies to Cr. Archer, but I am on the ratepayers' roll, and he himself suggested my making application if I thought I was labouring under an injustice as a new council was now in office.—Yours, etc., JUSTICE. July 20. VXi.i. TO TUB r.UIIOK. Or \i!A X'UF.Si. Sir,—ln a letter published in this morning's issue of "The Press" it is stated by "Not One-Eyed" that although there may have been 70 persons present at the meeting in Woolston the other evening to protest against the erection of a hoarding at the corner of Oak street and Ferry road, they were not all residents of Woolston. Of those present, as far as I know, only the three city councillors and the applicant for the permit were not residents of the district, unless "Not One-Eyed" were a representative of Chandler and Company not living in the district himself. My motion, which was carried unanimously, opposed the erection of hoardings, and asked the council to cancel its permission already given in this instance. I advanced this motion knowing the feelings of the residents, and to let the council know the residents' opinion. For more than 10 years we in the district have opposed hoardings in Woolston. When the district wa3 amalgamated with the city, three Woolston borough councillors were appointed by ballot to represent the district on the city council. On March 12, 1923, when I was on the City Council as a representative of Woolston, the council, which had before it an application for the erection of a hoarding, passed the following resolution: — "That after the present application is disposed of. the council decline to grant any further permits for the erection of hoardings within the city boundary." This was carried by 11 votes to eight. It was proposed by Cr. Sullivan, and seconded by me. The voting was—For the motion: Hervev, Herbert, Hart, Cant, Wright, Martin, Archer, Cooke, Hunter, Armstrong, Sullivan. Against: The Mayor, Williams, Flcshcr, McKcllaa, Manhire, E. H. Andrews, Brunt, Winsor. If this resolution has not been rescinded the council has had no power since then to permit any hoardings for the erection of a hoarding in September, 1924, a permit was sought for the erection of a hoarding in Ferry road. The late Mr John Richardson, Messrs J. T. Graham. C. Hill, and I, all ex-Mayors of Woolston, strongly protested in a letter to the City Council against the proposal, and the feeling against it was so strong that the aoplication was withdrawn. In February, 1925, an application; was made to the City Council for another hoarding on the Ferry road frontage of Monica Park. On this occasion the cx-Mavors: of Woolston, the Woolston Burgesses' Association, and the chairman of the school committee waited on the council, and again the application was refused. As regards the hoarding at the corner of Oak street and Ferry road, permission to erect this was granted three years ago without the residents being conversant with the particulars. But through their actions the permit was cancelled, and the hoarding was removed. The present application tor a hoarding in the same place was granted without notice being given to flic residents. At the last, meeting ot the council a petition was presented signed bv JlO residents of Woolston, all of whom were opposed to the hoarding Another petition presented by the man who owns the section, who is not a resident of Woolston, contained the names of only 44 supporters of the application. ... I therefore contend that this business is being placed before the council m a wrong light, and that it should be declared informal. Might I suggest that the councillors who agree to the erection of hoardings in Woolston should call a meeting of residents in the district, and consent to be guided by their opinion. If this

is dune I am Hire: ;in end will bo p"' fo the controversy, r hope the couucill will adopt the motion proposed by me, and supported by resident;; of the district, including two other exmayors. The lime and worry given to this question have been a source of annoyance to the resident;'. In order lo settle the question I suggest thatthe granting of all. pcrmitt; be liclo over until after the next council election when a referendum be taken to decide whether hoardings will be permitted. I ;»n confident of the result, as far as Woolston is concerned Your?, etc., McGregor wm<.in\ Formerly Mayor of Woolston. July 28, 1«i33. if, riit; f.Dfi'OK •->■*■ ->■"?■ p 'if;-."-. Sir,—To save any further waste of your space jn connexion with a Woolston hoarding, to end the riimpute, and to leave the section the thing of beauty it now is, I would surest that those who are protesting and their champions; Crs. Archer, Beanlaud, and Lyons, pay the outgoings, on the settion and also compensate the r.>wner for loss of revenue which would be obtained from the advertisements. This is a free country, and if a hand fwl of citizens and one or two councillors wish to take away the vighf:? of an individual, they should be willing to compensate him to the fullest extent. —Yours, etc., DO UNTO OTHERS. July 2'6, l. r m. DOMESTIC SEItVH K. ■so i in: Ki'iiOß oi" tit. int.-j. Sir, —The letter in your paper today on domestic service expresses the opinion of many serious thinkers on this matter. I say clearly that the letter expresses a fragment of the truth), of a sad and serious situation. I claim that this work should come under the leadership of intelligent, control and organisation. Also in the new ace this slavery will come under the eight-hcur day; out of that will arise the trained and efficient worker. The present dark aye attitude, to the worker—-the race mind toward the work, will be altered. The present day attitude of ownership once you enter the home lias to go. Can anyone imagine passing an office after (> p.m. and seeing the face of (he clerk peering through the window, his day's work done, but not free, not allowed out until his half-day? By the attitude or idea so deeply held and unchanged for, say, hundreds of years', it is; somehow also taken for granted that alert etliciency is not required. 1 ask that this point be considered. Is ii efficiency that a person shall be at. the beck and call of the employer all day long? You seethe general idea held by the employer is that you are kept going. If a vote were taken from the employers, how many would vote for the eight hour efficiently trained domestic? I do not think one in a hundred would vote for it. The new order that is corning is not only raising the standard of the worker, but it is going to educate the employer to a new order of things in the good old-fashioned home. Unselfishness will be more in evidence. It will even reach the home, where at present the mother carries the entire burden. Also other matters will be brought up to standard. Much that is considered comfortable will be dispensed with. I say comfortable because it is only comfortable at the expense of the slave. Again, the opportunity of tasting the meaning of a home is to be the grateful experience of this silent, down-trodden army. It is coming in the shape of hostels. It is wonderful that feeling you know, not just a roof over your head, but the essence of the spirit of it—privacy, and no one to own you for a few hours. 1 am not going to discuss the pious attitude of many employers who under the cover of present-day conditions are getting away with 5s and even less a week. Oh, it is a scandal—nothing less. Changed conditions cannot be brought about in a day, month, or year. I only know that out of to-day "is arising the emancipation of countless thousands. In closing, I say reform cannot be applied individually, it has to cover all. —Yours, etc., , REFORM. July 28, 1933. NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION. TO T.HB IDITOR. OF TUB TRESS Sir,—l was surprised to see in "The Press" the amount of correspondence my seriously put question at Mr McMillan's meeting has caused. I would like to inform Mr Bray that if his thoughts had been unbiased he would have realised that my question was in order. He says that I should have stated what I meant by socialisation. I meant exactly what Mr McMillan did. He specially emphasised what he meant, and even showed it by graphs and tables, which were produced upon the screen. It is evident that, like many Douglas Credit advocates, Mr Bray can only see one form of socialisation, which to me is a kind of hat trick; in other words "currency juggling/' Upon reading Mr W. Machin's letter I considered that it was grossly unfair. I asked: "If private enterprise fails, what is wrong with socialisation?" I realise only too truly that New Zealand has up to now received only a quiver of the economic earthquake that is to follow; hence my question. I believe that in the near future the people of New Zealand will refuse to play the ostrich game of hiding* their heads in the sand when they see disaster all round. I have attended during the last two years most of the lectures delivered in the Automobile Association's rooms and the Chamber of Commerce, and can observe amongst our business men developing serious signs of nervousness. If there was ever n time when private enterprise required balance it is now; and lhat was Mr McMillan's theme. Now, what are our business and industrial magnates doing? They are simply coining phrases, and many are sitting upon the fence, to see which way the wind is going to blow. I would like to say that the economic weather cock is pointing to storm, and the sky of private enterprise is black. Just fancy, a leader of the New Zealand business world accusing Mr McMillan of being an apostle of Marxian philosophy; it only shows what little knowledge he has of the economic world wide schools of thought. , I think your leading article of Wednesday was magnificent, and thank you for the able way you put the case. '[ would like to suggest to your interested readers to read with an open mind Mr G. 11. D. Cole's (lecturer at Oxford Universityi book, entitled An Intelligent Man's Guide Through the World Chaos, or even Sir Alfred Salter, Mr J. M. Keynes, and Mr Alfred Marshall's lectures—The Framework of an Ordered Society. By so doing thpv will at once admit that at present private enterprise is anarchical, and not an ordered society by any mean:. I do not claim to be an accountant, but I do claim fo know the meaning of well thought-out graphs and tables. I have been a reader of the British "Economist" and a serious student of social economy and social psychology, embracing all the branches of presentday problems, for more than 25 years. We must remember this truism, "That capitalism can never survive unless it can lend out its surplus profits to obtain more profits, and that the success of capitalism in the nineteenth century was that it was able to lend its surplus profits to undeveloped countries." We must now realise that those chickens have come home to roost.—Yours, etc., W. T. CONIBEAR. July 28, 1033.

•i'O Tilt EDITOR OF THE ME3S. Sir. —"What is wrong with socialisation?"—" Nothing." What is socialisation or socialism?— The commandeering of ail forms of j private enterprise Is that right or] wrong?— Yours, etc.. M.R. July 28, l f J33. i PLACE ACX DAMES. TO IHE EOUOr. Or 'EKE PItESB. ' Sir,—ln reply to Mr Hickmott 1 would say that of course I am serious, very serious indeed, in my suggestion that the men should be sent packing from the seats of the mighty, where they have made such an unholy mess of the whole world, and that women should take their places and introduce at last the rule of common sense. I differ so much from him in his allusion to "that institution up Lincoln road" that I believe that with women in power, as they should be, the institution would be closed in a generation, or would be turned into a theatre or some place of amusement. For a generation it might be necessary to use it as at present for the treatment of former members of Parliament, former mayors, former councillors, and those of like kidney who could finish their futile lives in endless debates such as are heard now in Parliament and councils. I notice his reference to the NewZealand Legion and would say that there is one hope for the legion. It admits women to its ranks now. i would suggest that the whole direction of the movement should be placed and left in the hands of women. The men would be merely silent members to fetch and carry as the women ordered. If the legion docs that there is a bright hope of a brilliant future for it. If it perversely holds to its present ways it will be contemptuously swept out of the way by conquering woman. Again place au dames.— Yours, etc., July 28. 1033. THE DATE OF ARMAGEDDON. Tu TUB I'.UU'OU 01" THE I'KKSS. Sir.—C. H. Liddington on Thursday says:'"l will try to show from Scripture when the battle of Armageddon is to take place"; and yet read as one may, he leaves the whole matter hanging in the air. In the last paragraph but one lio; implies that wc shall have a clear seven years' warning before Armageddon is likely to begin. How can this fit in with what the Rev. P. H Pritchett states is the chronological date on which the persecution of the Jews must cease? All thoughtful people are expecting s-ome marked event to manifest itself at the conclusion of this period of punishment. This expectant number includes many of the best-Informed Jews themselves. Can Mr Pritchett satisfactorily reconcile the discrepancy between Mr Liddington and himself?— Yours, etc., PUZZLED. July 2R. 1P33. MIRTH CONTROL. to twz rrjiToa op the fei^s. Sir,—A most disappointing feature of the conference of the New Zealand federation of Women's Institutes has been the refusal of the delegates to deal with the remit, "That the Health Department be urged to provide information on birth control, free of charge." The delegate who raised the point of order, claiming that not only was the subject an extremely controversial one, but that the whole question should be left to the individual conscience, was ill-advised to ask the conference to rule the remit out. Reading her remarks without due appre-

ciation of the value of each word, the lirst impression is that her statement is correct. And it is not difficult to understand why there was such a preponderance of agreement among the delegates. But surely it would be truer to say that not so much the whole question, but rather the application of the principles of birth control should be a matter for the individual conscience. It is unfortunately the case that there is so much deplorable ignorance about biological matters. So many parents fail in their duty to teach their children all they should know about sex and its implications, that individual investigation of the subject is too often hampered by ignorance and the unreasoning barriers of prejudice and false modesty. The conference was not asked to decide whether birth control is a proper or a pernicious doctrine. It would be outside its scope to define individual rights; but by the passing of this remit it is possible that many would at least have had the opportunity of judging for themselves the advisability of practising some moderation in the bearing of children. The conference had the opportunity of asking the Health Department to throw light on a subject which convention is inclined to view askance, but it failed lamentably to realise its responsibilities.—Yours, etc., E.W.H. July 2d, 1933. PUNISHMENT OF DEFAULTING LAWYERS. i io mz EDiTOK or THE WItSS I Sir,—For some considerable time the attention of tho public has been drawn 'to the misdoings of members of the legal profession, the tragic tales usually ending with a sentence of imprisonment for the offenders, and their disbarring and degrading from the only profession to which they had, after years of toil and study, trained themselves. I have never read of such a case without feeling acutely the grim tragedy of it all. I am no apologist for peculation or any crime against society, but to take a young I man—for most of the defaulters are J young—and on account of a foolish ] misdemeanour sentence him to a penalty which will last as long as life, seems to me to be inhumanly cruel. I And always behind the disgraced man in the dock I can see the heartbroken wife and children who have innocently been dragged down to shame and disgrace. The charge against such men is usually peculation and the misappropriation of trust funds. Such crimes must be punished, but in urging that judgment should be tempered with mercy, if only for the sake of the families and friends of the offenders, I would venture to suggest a more humane punishment which would be equally effective as a deterrent. I understand that the defalcations by a defaulting lawyer are now met by a fidelity fund—a most excellent provision, the founding of which is a high tribute to the members of the profession who would keep it honourable and above reproach. What I would suggest, however, would bo ■ that when any of these defalcations ,-ire suspected the Law Society should hold an enquiry, and if the defalcation were proved, meet it out of the fidelity fund, at the same time suspending the lawyer until he has repaid the amount. That would still leave open to him the possibility of re-entering the honourable profession, and it would save his nearest ones the intolerable disgrace which falls on them under the present system. As things are, it would perhaps be more kindly to pass sentence of death, for what can a lawyer who has served a term in gaol, and who has been kicked out of his profession, find in life worth while? I am sure there must be many who think as I do, and who would rejoice to see these fools—more fools. than knaves —given a chance of rehabilitate themselves in

the eyes of their relatives, their profession, and the world. I realise full well the difficulties that would be encountered, but they could be surmounted, and I feel sure any movement in the direction I have suggested would have the support of all people of broad and humanitarian views.—Yours, etc., i NINO DI SOMMA. * July 27, 1933. [The president of the Law Society, Mr Roy Twyneham, said yesterday that he could not subscribe to the view that the power of punishing defaulting lawyers should be removed from the courts to the Law Society, "In the first place," he said, "although we have some disciplinary powers, we have no power to suspend a lawyer, nor have we the power to strike him off the roll. These functions are purely judicial. All we can do, where we find a case of misconduct justifying punishment in our opinion, is to go to the only tribunal that ha 6 the power of action—the court I think, however, that there should be some power incorporated in the Law Practioners Act to enable a lawyer to go [off the roll voluntarily. If we had I such a provision, it would save a I solicitor from the indignity of being ! struck off. As for giving us power to [punish in cases of breaches of the criminal law, I do not hold with that for one minute. After all, the punishment of crime has always been the prerogative of the Crown, and it would be casting far too heavy a responsibility on to any law society to enable it to pass sentence, One cannot see any reason in law why the crime of a solicitor should receive any less publicity than the crime of ahy other individual."] NEW ZEALAND PRODUCE IN ENGLAND. TO VHB EDITOR Of THE PMSS. Sir,—You may be interested in the following letter from a seaside town in England:— "We have a new market here that. only sells New Zealand produce—lamb, butter, honey, and all kinds of fruit. There are a good many shops, too, where they only sell New Zea-i land meat. I think they do fairly | well." —Yours, etc., __ I SUSSEX. ( July 28, 1933. TKEE-PLANTING BY SCHOOLS. to ins. Ewroa or iftt tnuss. Sir,—l was reading in "The Press" a report that the Education Board had started planting a few hundred trees because one energetic school committee, Belfast, with its schoolmaster, had agreed to do so. I believe the board has a block of land at North Brighton just off the Racecourse road extension, of at least 150 acres. I am given to understand that during the last 18 months the funds from the No. 5 unemployment scheme have paid between £3OOO to £4OOO in relief wages to clear certain portions of this land. What for, the taxpayer may ask? To plant Ireeß? Oh, no, simply to make an 18-hole'golf course for a club which could not pay for broken axe handles for tools for the relief workers. I am informed that the Education Board receives from this golf club for rent the magnificent sum of twenty guineas per annum. The board supplies the tools and does the bookkeeping of the wages paid. There is somewhere a block plan of this land, divided off into sections, and each school in and around Christchurch has drawn a block. Why is it that this tree-planting scheme has practically gone dead? Is it not time the school committees, with their schoolmasters, took action and followed Befast School's example? Surely all taxpayers must admit that the growing of trees is a far better eco-

nomic proposition than making am expensive golf course.—Yours, etc., RETURNS FOR THE FUTURE. July 22, 1933. [Discussing the above letter yesterday, the secretary of the Canterbury Education Board, Mr C R. Kirk; said the area at North Brighton had been in a very rough condition, and it was originally intended to let the school children clear it themselves. However. it was realised that the work would be too heavy for children, and advantage was taken of the No. 5 Scheme to secure relief labour. The heavy work of clearing bad been completed and the school children were now starting where the labourers had left off. Actually, a number of schools had started work on their plots, Belfast having given the lead.] >EW ZEALAND UNIVERSITY. TO THt 2BITO& OV TK» -P&E.S3. Sir,—l have been greatly interested in the storm raised by the comparison between English and New Ttttiani universities. We have it on high authority that "comparisons are odious" and some of us have heard that the sting of an accusation lies in the amount of truth it contains. Some people seem to have been badly stuns. They would perhaps prefer an appti-. cation of butter and honey.—Your*," etc., READER. July 28, 1933. RICCARTON METHODIST CHURCH. ■lO THX XDITOB Or THE MESS. Sir,—The committee responsible ior the Riccarton Methodist Church music and elocutionary competitions has instructed me to'convey to you its appreciation of your action in so fully reporting the results of the cotnpdiI tions which have so far taken place. > I do this with very great pleasure.— Yours, etc., ! EILEEN LEATHWICK. Secretary to the Committee. I July 28, 1933.