Letters to The Editor

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20988, 17 October 1933, Page 6

Letters to The Editor

fori'' ■.piHil'T.t- ".lio d" not comply with oiir'rut"- ft nut in the last column of our :i,i'»nVr l'n'.i-' f > "ill excu.-o us from noticing lU'ir lull-jrj.. C.It.W.: Tloro is no r.vnm oi a Geor~c TTI. rennv dntpd 1775. Tho fu-orpc XII. , J(M ,i,« (I 'rrt v.-orth u lev.- shilling ouch, jK.rhi.r-, u-.tn.v.

MONETARY SYSTEM AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO TITE EJMTOu 0? Till-* TP-E^S-Sir,—The Canterbury Chamber of J Commerce has just elected its new committees. The chamber is an august i hody—by the space it commands in the' daily press. It represents business men—big business. Are business men interested in the slump and economic recovery? This query is prompted by a motion oC the London Chamber of Commerce at the thirteenth connvs.s nf the Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire; held iu London at the beginning of July. 3 !);;3 —when the "trade recovery" had ill ready begun, even though the World Economic Conference, the failure of ■which presaged a "collapse oj. our civilisation," and resultant chaos, had already begun to hang out distress signals. The motion reads: "This congress of the Federation of Chambers o) Commerce of the British Empire, recognising the immense changes in the social »nd economic conditions of the world, brought about by the application of scientific discovery to agriculture, industry, and means of transport and communication, deplores the lack of corresponding advance in the monetary .system, both nationally and internationally. It calls 011 the governments of the Empire to concentrate upon finding a monetary system which will enable the peoples cf the world to enjoy the vast abundance which technological improvements have made available. The congress, representing the producers of real wealth, wishes to place on record that it is strongly opposed to all measures designed to bring about prosperity by the creation of scarcity through artificial means." Will the Canterbury chamber's new president please inform me if:—(1) His chamber has seen this resolution? (2) Has it discussed the resolution? '3) Does it agree or disagree with it? (4) If it agrees with it, does it think the Central Bank is a medium of a new monetary system? (5) If the chamber favours the Central Bank now, why did it think it unnecessary when it published Bulletin 81? (G) Has the chamber ever invited the advocates of a new monetary system to state their case before the chamber? (7) Has it refused to allow any such advocates (Douglas socfal credit movement) to state their case? (8) If so. is it in accord or opposed to the desire of the London chamber to find a new monetary system? The business men of Christchurch are victims of the existing system, as sire the rest of the community, and it 'would be gratifying to many to know that our chamber has not set out upon its new year of office merely as a group of "institutionalists" desiring to maintain the status quo; but to attempt to solve the problem which is inflicting hardship on many of their fellow citizens, and which will eventually embrace them in the toils.—Yours, etc., ALAN" R. ALLARDYCE. October 12. 1933.

On this letter being shown to the president of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, Mr A. F. Wright, he stated that he did not consider any useful purpose could be served by a public argument, with the advocates of the Douglas system or any other similar proposal;;. Individual members of the chamber were quite competent to form opinions on those subjects, and if a sufficiently large of the members decided that such proposals were worthy of discussion in the chamber, then such a discussion would take place. Mr Wright added they the chamber •was aware of the proposals being put forward by the London chamber and had actually reprinted them and circularised them, not only in Canterbury, but to many other parts of New i Zealand. So far as the Central Bank ■was concerned, the chamber had had the matter under close consideration j for some time, but had made no pronouncement since Bulletin No. 81. DEMOCRACY AND THE FUTURE TO THE EniTOa oy Tin: PRESS, Sir, —I should like to thank you, with other readers of "The Press," for your leading article on the European situation in to-day's issue. Such a leader should do much to establish the esteem and confidence of the public. As you rightJy point out, there is a limit to a nation's claim for sovereign rights, just as there is a limit to the rlaim for personal freedom amongst individuals. Unfortunately national morals seem to lag a long way behind personal morality, and any utterance that tends to raise our national ideals to a higher level is to be welcomed. No doubt the ancient Viking hotly resented any interference "with what he considered his sovereign rights—was Vie not king in his own galley?—and yet history records his failure. For good or evil the world is rapidly becoming one organism and the sooner we recognise this the better, not only in politics but also in commerce and enterprise.—Yours, etc., ANALYST. October IG. 1933.

TO THE EDITOR OF TUB TRESS. Sir. —Unlike your correspondent "Democrat," I did not read into your leading article of October 13 anything that suggested to me "the visualising of some heavenly political system." I enjoyed the article in question immensely, but am not sure now that what I did read into it was not a case of the wish being father to the thought. Perhaps your correspondent "Democrat" and I are both mistaken. You wrote: "For the truth is that democracy has been betrayed by its institutions and can be saved only by drasticalterations to those institutions." From the general trend of "Democrat's" letter, I assume that the institutions referred to are taken by him to mean parliaments! The meaning of the word "democracy" is to-day generally taken to mean "political democracy," a svstem of government arrive! at by counting heads, and as such it is jealousy guarded as the inalienable birthright of all citizens. As a method of securing the services of the best brains in the country to direct our progress, democracy, in this sense, has obvious tfaults, and was probably chiefly intended as a protective measure. If we widen the meaning of the word democracy, and make it mean political and economic democracy, and view the political merely as a means of achieving the economic, then counting heads for an "economic democracy" is surely logical. In this connexion it is interesting to read the preamble to the American Constitution, which can leave no doubt m the mind of the reader that by "democracy" its authors meant economic democracy. If we take the aims of the New Zealand Legion as entirely worthy, the *>est that we can possibly make of their suggestions is (hat political democracy would run a truer, smoother, and perhaps more honourable course under neir guidance. Well, suppose it does, the legion will put up its own jockeys who we will assume are more honourable than the ones at present in the saddle, and they will ride their race like perfect gentlemen. But they will ride round the same course, and finish at the same finishing post as the present jockeys. Let us grant the New Zealand Legion that the race would

be run without a number of unpleasant circumstances that at present annoy the crowd. "Democrat" asks why it is that many ardent reformers stand aloof from the legion. I think it is because either through deduction, induction, or merely intuition, _ the people referred to think that political democracy—even in its most purged and perfect form—is only "wrapping paper"; what they want is the goods —economic democracy. I would define economic democracy as the right to share in the wonderful possibilities of production up to the countries' phvsical limit to deliver goods as, when, and where required. -Yours, etc., d _ c October 10, 1933. POLICY OF THE LEGION TO Tin: KUITOR OF THE I'RESS. Sir,—"Marxist" is quite correct in his dejected anticipation that the New Zealand Legion will not be drawn into a discussion "about the fundamentals of political philosophy." 1 wish that this critic of the legion wore as plain of socech and as scornful of casuistry as I try to be. Then he would have said that the discussion he would seek is one upon communism, a political theory the legion has sensibly put outside the range of practical politics. It will not waste time in discussing what it has already rejected in the most explicit term.-;." I smile at "Marxist's" naive assumption that the intelligence in such a discussion would be wholly on his side. May the "Lord "gie us a guid conceit o' oorsels." But, with your permission, I shall deal as faithfully as your limits will allow' with his challenge of the legion's alleged sophistries and reactionary role. If it aims, as he says, at "an ordered, prudent system of elfieient government," is that a fact 10 be deprecated or denounced? I imagine he will agree that our present system is neither ordered, prudent,

nor efficient. Will he say wherein tlie legion errs in seeking to eradicate those defects, and elucidate his peculiar terminology that could interpret such a reform as a reactionary movement? His remarks about Switzerland and its system of government are pointless. The legion has not adopted the Swiss system. It has considered it along with other systems in order that after a survey of all systems it may be able to choose the best of them, or the best in all or any of them, to submit to its members for consideration. "Marxist's" reference to Hitlcrism, and the legion's alleged carefully camouflaged sympathy for it and l-ascism is too silly for words. Again, ioi the thousandth time, I affirm that the legion is implacably opposed to all tyi annies, which would, of course, include the Russian one—perhaps the most detestable of all, even if it be £,ilued with what my critic would probably call proletarianism. The legion i.s absolutely democratic in its ideals and purposes, and seeks to establish itself "broad-based upon the peoples _ will." And hitherto its en oils in that direction have been remarkably successful. What "Marx, Vj. t , sa . ys ln denunciation of Hitler and lulensm I and all legion members endotse. But it is a pity he did t\t in^ u . do 111 his denunciatory sweep Mussolini and Fascism-nnd Sovietlatter the worst tjiann> of di.i lot. rw lll ' n £ \ he , legi ? 11 a set of dreamers | not help this critic's case. He ! scorns_ Ihe legion because it un'es evolution, where he would have revolution. Here I might point to a significant fact which tells its own tale. The legion's chief opponents arc the professional politicians and Ihe communists, ancl the sensible man will diagnose their respective attitudes in this fashion. The professional politician opposes it, for he dreads the loss of his present position in the party system, and the potential prizes of office which the party system dangles before him. The communist fears the legion, for if it accomplishes its purpose it will give to the people of the Dominion such a sensible and efficient system of government as will postpone the realisation of his communistic dreams to the Greek Kalends. I do not think "Marxist's" criticism

calls for further reply. I have not wilfully evaded any of the points raised by him, and will be quite willing to discuss with him (with an intelligence less than his, of course) the legion, its purpose, aims, and methods, but I will not be drawn into a discussion on communism, which, like 99 per cent, of the sensible people of the Dominion, I look upon not only as impossible and impracticable, but positively vicious in the tyranny and suppression of individual liberty it connotes.— Yours, etc., LEGIONARY. October 14, 1933. GOLD-MINING TO TUB EDITOB Off TltE r»E3B. Sir, —In "The Press" of Wednesday T saw that your correspondent,- Mr Nino di Somma, criticised my letter, which you were so good as to publish on Tuesday. I can afford to ignore anything a new ch-im like. Mr di Somma has to say. I came to this country in 1882, so was not in the early rushes, but I met large numbers of the contemporaries of your Christchurch "G.0.M.", Sir Arthur Dudley Dobson, and such men we have not got now. It is only a short time ago since Christchurch was in a perfect turmoil because unemployed men refused to go into camp a few miles from the

city. Your correspondent seems to think one only had to scratch the surface and find rich prospects. The first rush I went to was in September of 1885. My mate and I were about 40 miles from where the prospects were found. The gold was found in the Merivale part of the Longwood Ranges, Wallace County. We arrived at the Merivale station in the dark, but, as always, the squatters made us welcome and fed us. The next morning we started, into the bush. There was not even a blazed track, and wo landed at the prospectors' camp—at dusk in soaking rain. We pitched our Gft by Bft tent, cut scrub for a field bed, and cooked some meat in the prospectors' camp. Two more men arrived without a tent, and as the prospectors' camp was full, we took the men in with us in our tent. As the prospectors' camp was on the only clear, l-?vcl place, our lent was at the bottom part of a sloping terrace, and we had no ditch cut. Naturally we were packed in with our heads to the rise. The rainfall there is a good deal as it is on parts of the West Coast. So before morning the water was running into the back or our necks and through all our clothes. We had a lively time. All we could do was to pile up the scrub ancl sit on it. Unfortunately tne scrub was that, very detestable class with a vile smell. In a short time (here were more than 500 men there. Large numbers came and went again. Now the whole of the large area tested was a "duffer," or, to put it mildly, a "stringer," and there were only two small claims payable. The prospectors' own claim was a rank duffer. There were a great number of these stringer diggings. The size of claim allowed was lOOft by 100 ft, and if several went in together, the claim could be only twice the length and width. When I took up a claim in the Round Hill-Longwood district, the largest area I could get was 20 acres, at a yearly rental of £2O. My company had also to pay uie miners, of whom it had to employ three men for every acre, an allowance being made in proportion to the amount of capital invested. My company had £30,000 capital. At that time water rights

were very costly also. The smallnessj of the area allowed placed companies at a great disadvantage. It allowed' others to peg off in front of the com-1 pany, and the company usually had! to buy the others out. It was not ] until several years after that the 100-! acre claim was allowed and the three j men per acre rule was repealed. At the present time, I gather from reports in the press, companies may hold areas the size of x.:rms and no interlopers can get a foc.mg. With reference to the two payable claims on the Merivale diggings, there was a belt of sandstone there crossing the creek, and it was on that sandstone bottom where the gold was highly payable. I have found that sandstone, soft slate, and feldspathic sand bottom are the most certain to carry gold, always providing it is a gold district. With reference to the price of gold, the Golden Dawn return published in "The Press" yesterday will show the great advantage the people have now compared with what they received years ago. The return was £679 gold at £4 an ounce at the current price of gold, plus exchange. The return is equivalent to approximately £llOO. There is also this to consider, that a large area of the land from which the gold is extracted is rendered useless for all time. I have helped to destroy a lot of land myself.—Yours, etc., GEORGE LEE. SHEEP OWNERS AND RUSSIAN TRADE

to run editoii ip the rnciia. Sir,—May I thank Mr Hurley for his answer to my letter and the information he gives. The latter is interesting but needs careful examination. Mr Hurley admits that the Russian Government confiscated the Baku oil fields without compensation. May this procedure be termed theft? If so, he and I are in agreement on this point. What the profits made by the Rothschild Company before confiscation, or the possibility that the company is not now a r/.aupcr concern have to say to the matter I do not understand. Did the New Zealand Government confiscate the Waihi gold mines because they were successful? In any case, are Mr* Hurley's two statements correct? I bought some 1000 ten shilling shares in the Baku Russian oil mines in 1911 at five shillings a share. These were subsequently converted into 220 one pound shares in the Baku Consolidated Oil Company. This does not sound like a transaction in an enormously profitable company. What connexion, if any, the Rothschilds had with the company I do not know. Does it matter? Why drag in their names? The Baku Consolidated Oil Company still exists. It is not a pauper concern, because its reserves have been sufficient to pay its office expenses, but it has not paid a dividend since 1922 or thereabouts.

Mr Hurley wants to know if I have ever seen a British tanker in New Zealand. I doubt if I have over seen any tanker knowingly, but am I wrong in thinking that the Shell Company has its own tanker?-, or does Mr Hurley, like so many New Zealanders, regard this company as American? He wants to hear more about British petrol. Well, he says he knows something of the oil business, and so he must know something of Shell transport. Does he suggest this is not a British company because it has Dutch and American associated companies'.' His denial of my suggestion, that not one farthing of the money paid for Russian petrol goes to any country that buys New Zealand products, is apparently right in form. My question, however, was wrongly worded. May I alter it'.' How does the balance of 'trade stand between this country and Russia? We buy their petrol, what New Zealand products do they take in exchange? In his answer to my last question he suggests that it is impossible to buy British petrol. I habitually buy Shell, in which company I happen to have some shares bought a good many years ago when they were considerably higher than they are now. Can lie explain to me how I have been misled all these years into thinking that a company whose head office is and always has been in London, whose chairman is, and all of whose directors are, I believe, British, is not itself British? Or is he merely stating what everyone knows—that the British Empire is for the most part dependent on oil fields which its members have developed outside the Empire? Finally comes the question of buying petrol in the lowest market. Well, it is an excellent scheme, but, like all other honourable schemes in commercial life, it presumably presupposes that the market is an honest one. If diamonds played an essential part in New Zealand life, would Mr Hurley advocate the formation of a syndicate of illicit diamond buyers? If the Russians were to offer to take wool in equivalent quantities to the petrol bought, are we going to sell our 1 inherited tradition of honesty for, as the schoolboy used to put it, "a mess of potash"? If this is Mr Hurley's inI tention, then our ideas are too far ' apart to make any discussion of them profitable. I think this letter answers also the letters of "Motorist," and of Mr Robinson in most points. I do not propose jto discuss socialism with the latter. j The former I can assure thai I have | no connexion direct or indirect with j the oil companies, except that I own <i few shares in the Shell and Bunnali Companies, if the whole of New Zealand bought, nothing but. Shell petrol my dividends might increase annually by half a crown. On the other hand they might not.—-Yours, etc., I X. j October 14, 1933.

TO THE EDITOH Of TUB PftKSfl. Sir, —In mathematics "X" is the unknown quantity, in Soviet politics it is the unknowing quantity. While we are not importers of Soviet petrol, yet seeing that part of the constitution of the Friends of the Soviet Union is the encourcgement of trade, we may be allowed to answer those five crushing queries which the unknowing quantity has put. Question (a) asks if Russian petrol does not come from fields formerly owned by the Baku Consolidated Oil Fields. Answer: No, the fields were not owned by that company, they were concessions, and furthermore, when the British Army, under General Thompson evacuated these fields they set them on fire, and destroyed all the property themselves. It cost the Soviets two years of-labo.ir, much suffering, and many valuable lives to overcome the fires and repair the damage. Is that sufficient answer? Question (b) is partly answered above, but would "X" hold the Soviets responsible for the damage done by the British Army? Question (c): It is true that so far only foreign tankers have brought Soviet oil to New Zealand, but "X" must surely know as little about commerce as he does about the history of the Baku oil fields if he can say that no benefits or profits accrued "to either England or New Zealand even then: there are commissions, port and canal dues, fuelling and provisions, and the host of all expenses that have to be met in the transport service. Also was not the last ship (a Greek tanker) built in Glasgow? As for competition with English petrol, would it be impertinent to ask if Sir Henry Deterding is English, or if Mr Rockefeller owes allegiance to the Union Jack? If competition is all that is the matter, why does not "X" fulminate against the Dutch and American oil trusts? The statements accompanying question (d) are simply not true. The Soviet buys a certain amount of New Zealand wool, and will buy a great deal more if we are wise enough. Also in foreign trade it is not always easy to see the benefits accruing by repercussion. To illustrate this point, America buys only the tiniest portion of New Zealand wool but buys a great deal of silk from Japan, who then buys New Zealand wool. If America stops buying silk then Japan may stop buying wool in like proportion. This

question assumes far too much and makes up in assertion what it lacks in proof. As to unfair competition there is really no such thing. There are four powerful monopolies fighting for a larger share in- world trade, and in commerce, as in biology, there is the survival of the fittest, the most efficient wins. "X's" complaint seems to be that the socialist form the Soviet competition takes is the most efficient and is beating the others. If that is true it is a fact, that is just what is happening, and in other things oeside oil.—Yours, etc., PUBLICITY COMMITTEE, FRIENDS , OF THE SOVIET UNION. October 13, 1933.

THE STUIIT I'EA TO TUB J'DITOE OF TIIK DIKSS. Sir,—ln an issue of "The Press" a few days ago I read a short account of some plants recently imported from Australia, to Aucklanu, I think, and among them it mentioned the pea. Now. beyond having once seen a specimen in a lady's garden in Christchurch, and having read an occasional note about it, I know little or nothing about it, but on my mentioning having seen it to an Australian acquaintance, he said, "Go back and find it and burn it." I gathered from him that it is much dreaded by pastoral ists in Australia. The pea itself is apparently a deadly poison to horses, the euect being to send them mad before death, if this is correct, and I believe it is, should not such an importation be barred, however beautiful the llower?—Yours, etc., TUARANGI. October 13, 1933.

ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL TO Tint EDITOR OF THE L'KES3. Sir, —I am much interested in St. George's Hospital, and was glad to read the speech of Archbishop Julius, at the opening of the market. It is a pity that so many folk like to disparage the hospital. I have been frequently informed that there arc no beds for the poor in the hospital, and it pleased me to read that the hospital "gives the poor people just what 1 they want." I feel it would be well if the secretary informed the public of the number of free beds available, and also of the number of patients I who have been admitted free since the hospital started its beneficent career of providing free medical and nursing services for the poor. Such information would be a great assistance to the hospital, and would encourage those of us who have helped to build the hospital.—Yours, etc., ADMIRER. October 11. 1933. POISONING OF DOGS TO THE tIDITOE Olf THE I'ItESS Sir, —I feel compelled to ask for space to reply to your correspondent "Control." Surely this person must have dreamt that I was in favour of poisoning rabbits. I openly challenge "Control" to quote to your readers any remark in my correspondence where I "think it is quite right to poison rabbits." This remark by "Control" is positively untrue. I would never consider for one moment that any animal or bird should suffer the tortures of pois in, and few people in New Zealand have advocated the painless destruction of the dumb creation more consistently than I have. —Yours, MRS A. L>. HOUSTON. Dominion Pr esid en t. The Humanitarian and Anti-Vivisec-tion Society of New Zealand. October R 1933.

NKiliT NOISKS ■l'd Tin: Knrvon ov ura rr.r.ts Sir,—Some: month:; ago a letter of mine appeared in your paper respecting the above matter, and the shot then firec) seemed to have taken effcet, as peaee reigned in my neighbourhood for a time. However, a recurrence: of the trouble compels me to tire my .second barrel. I, of course, refer to those delightful people who think it necessary (hat the neighbours should know that, they have been having a bridge par(3', and in the early hours of the morning when taking their departure commence a loud cross fire of conversation, interspersed with a backfire of motor engines, the loud banging of doors, and hearty laughter. The Chinese so often harried by the police when having a quiet game of cards are princes compared with these suburban svvankers. My neighbours can have bridge parties for seven nights in the week so far as I am concerned, so long as they leave me in peace, but to be .jerked out of a nice dream at a point where one is just "turning the corner" is not playing the game. If this bullet does not find its billot, then there will be bloodshed in my district. Yours, etc., PAPANUI. October l(i, l!i:W.

II LLP FOR IMSTRKSSKI) FAMILY •io in, kditok op tiii; -i■ i: . Sir.--l would like to thank yon sincerely for the space given to my appeal for furniture and clothing lo succour the family of seven which was rendered destitute by lire recently. The response to that appeal was very wonderful and makes one l'eel increasingly proud to belong to a city which never turns a deaf ear (o any cry for help. An interesting feature of the response was the number of relief workers and old age pensioners who gave out of their own need, although it is also true that all sections ol! the community made their contribution. Another noticeable feature was how the old Scots proverb was fuliilled that "Mony a mickle mak's a muckle." It was the number of small gifts that made the result so successful. One friend provided.a tea-pot, another curtains, another a cruet, another cutlery, and so on. Some friends also helped with sums of money, which were used to buy linoleum and major articles of furniture. Thanks are especially due to Mr M. E. Lyons and Miss Havelaar, of the Business Men's Committee, who made up what was lacking by providing chairs, blankets, and new clothing. I am very haupy to say that the family has been able to make a new start in another house, and they are very grateful for all the citizens of Christchurch have done for them. Once again "Thank you, everybody!"— Yours, etc 1,. McMASTER. Helping Hand Mission, Woolston. October IG, 1933.

SELF-DEMAL WEEK 'l'll IHE KIUTUIi OF Tllr; I'KKSS. Sir, —In your paper this morning I read: "The Salvation Army is urgently in need of money to carry on its welfare work in the city, and accordingly it will make a self-denial appeal to the public on Friday next." This is indeed surprising to me, for I always understood that money collected for "self-denial week" was sent straight home to England. Could you inform me what really is done with the amount collected?— Yours, etc., G. S. JONES. October 16, 1933. [When this letter was referred to the Divisional Headquarters of the Salvation Army in the city it was stated that only a small proportion of the money raised during "self-denial week" left New Zealand. It was paid into the international missionary fund. The remainder was used for social and Samaritan work in New Zealand.]