POINTS FROM OTHER LETTERS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21812, 18 June 1936, Page 15

POINTS FROM OTHER LETTERS

DEFENCE OF NEW ZEALAND

On the question of the defence of New Zealand W. D. Thompson agrees with the Rev. O. Fitz Gerald that New ’Zealand must tackle the question of defence in a practical manner and without undue delay. “If we take pride in belonging to the British Empire, we should be prepared to contribute our quota towards its maintenance in peace or war, both morally and financially, and in no niggardly or parsimonious spirit.” he says. ‘We should not expect the privileges of membershin of this great union of English-sneaking peoples without shouldering some of its responsibilities. The racists, while enjoying the benefits of living under the protection of the British flag, overlook, or ignore, the fact that these benefits are only made possible by the strength and might of Britain’s armed forces.”

Replying to Mr C. R. N. Mackie. on (he same subiect. “Young Labour Party” says: “Tf there is in fnr-t no defence to air invasion fas Mr Mackie statedl then that ends the matter arfd why should T stnt.e a case for a situation that Mr Mackie says definitely and finally cannot be met. ... I

am nrenared to give a concise statement regarding ‘adequate defence’ in l,»rms of mihtarv ecmipment. provided Mr Mackie will beforehand satisfactorily exnlain to me whv there is no defence to air invasion. I do net want Mr Mackie's personal oninion or grounds for it, but the authoritative opinions of some duly recognised military experts.”

“M” says (renlying to the Rev. .1. R, He’wey): “Does he fMr Herveyl think that Italy would have attacked Abvssinh had the latter been as well armed and prenared for war as Italy was? This unnrovoked war should be an object lesson to those who rely on pacifist ideals in dealing with militarist, nations such as Janan and Italy. One might just as well trv to pull a tiger off a pound of steak.”

On the same subiect Graham Haggitt says; “On H.M.S. New Zealand there is inscribed, ‘Sivis pacem para bellum’ fTf you want peace prenare for war’), and I contend that in the present sad state of the world to abide by this advice is the safest and surest wav of bringing peace to the Empire. It is unfortunately a fact that there are among the nations to-day those, who for reasons known to themselves, would take advantage of any weakness in another power, and have indeed latterly shown their disregard of written and spoken promises. It is essential to the existence of New Zealand and Australia that they be imperialistic to the utmost degree. England is, at last, rapidly rearming, and surely, apart from any sentimental reasons, it is in the interests of Australia and New Zealand to follow her lead. The question of what defences New Zealand is in direst need should, I humbly contend, be left to our aviation and military authorities. It is not for the man in the street to lay the law down dogmatically on this subject, but for the trained experts in this country of whom we have no shortage if they will only come forward.”

On the subject of “Consolation,” Peter Trolove says: “After reading the ‘R.M.’ letter, may I tell him that his problem of conveying consolation to his grief-stricken agnostic friend—l have been up against a similar one, more than once—depends on the mentality of that friend, to what extent he has been indoctrinated with wrong ideas.”

Replying to W. D. Thompson on this subject, “R.M.” says: “Mr Thompson finishes by saying that my friend should read certain books on ‘survival.’ Now I admit that the knowledge that could be gained from these books would probably be helpful, but I think that Mr Thompson will admit that, if his claims for the person who is going to give the demonstration are sound, the reading of books by these so-called authorities will only be of secondary importance. I would like to say this, that in the other correspondent, Eglon Sercombe’s reply to me, I can sfee no value at all. On the evidence presented to me of incidents that he quotes as truths which are said to have happened 2000 years ago, well, I simply cannot accept them as truths.”

“Peaceful” writes: “The contemplation of the after life may not afford much consolation to ‘R.M.’s’ friend, if he is an agnostic, but it may serve to bring home to him the emptiness in a time of trouble of agnosticism and the folly of God rejection. Were he and his followers of Jesus Christ they would be certain of spending eternity together in that land where all tears are wiped away, and pain and sorrow are unknown. Let ‘R.M.’ introduce his friend to Jesus Christ. He is the great burden-bearer, and the God of all consolation. But if he is well advised, he will warn him against spiritism, with its spook? and mediums and false teachings.”

“W.A.” says: “In the case of one who dies, without Christ as Saviour, no consolation, no words of comfort or cheer can be given. For, in the words

of the Scriptures, beyond the grave, they have ‘no hope.’ ” [Subject to the right of reply of "R.M.,” this correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”]

Frank Brown suggests the following plan for rat extermination: Obtain some ordinary pollard, mix it up with phosphorus, using about two-thirds phosphorus to one-third pollard. When you have a very stiff batter (using a little water to mix) divide it into balls like marbles and scatter them liberally in the attic, getting through the xnan-

hole in the ceiling. In mixing the preparation add some strong aniseed, v.l.ich no rat can resist. Close by the balls of aniseed place a basin of water. When the rats eat the bait they go for water, which is like red to a bull and bums the inside. It is a sudden death. Wash bands afterwards and burn paper you mix on as it may be dangerous to humans. “Garetha” suggests sewing the baits for the rats in a piece of old calico or muslin, which has been found very efficacious for catching both rats and mice. They tug at the wrapping of the bait, and the trap goes off.