NECESSARY FOOD

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22662, 17 March 1939, Page 4

NECESSARY FOOD

TO THE EDITOR OF THE I*lll3B Sir, —Practically all fruit, and more especially citrus fruit, is included under the above heading, but far too many people are denied oranges, lemons, pineapples and grapefruit on account of ,the high prices charged. Australia has just made a “corner” in potatoes in the good old American way in vogue years ago in that country, when any individual or collection of individuals wished to accumulate a fortune. In New Zealand we are taxed on every pound of butter (another necessary food) we consume to prop up the farmer. When our butter is being retailed in London at Is 2d and Is 3d per lb we are charged Is 6d per lb in New Zealand. • Do we live merely to be exploited by certain sections of the community? It certainly looks like it. It is high time we had a Housewives' Association to look into the matter of prices for all goods, whether perishable or otherwise. Too long have these matters been arranged by men alone to the detriment of the inhabitants of this country.—Yours, etc., UNE FEMME. March 18, 1939.

A QUESTION OF DRESS TO THE EDITOR OF TEX PRESS Sir, —I consider the final summing up of the magistrate who dealt with the case of the young woman who bathed in the sea, minus the necessary scanty covering, was clean out of order. The duties of a magistrate should (in my estimation) be to find the person guilty or not guilty, on the evidence placed before him. I hold that no magistrate has any right to pass his personal opinion on any person (or persons) brought before him in a Court of law. The young lady was most fortunate that she was not a Maori maid, else she would have received two years (cold) in St. Mary’s Home. The question of dress reminds me of two young Maori girls who after living in the cities most of their lives decided to spend their holidays in the country. They did so, just at the time when ladies’ slacks were the latest vogue. Attired in slacks and the usual accessories, they cycled through a village, but did not get half way down the street before they were hailed by the constable of the district and told to hit out of it or he would run them in. The same constable would have his work cut out if he ran every young miss into prison today, because every young girl does not think her wardrobe complete without a pair or two of the latest in slacks. People are so one-eyed, especially the old folk. They dearly love to cling to the good old-fashioned ways. Dress, as I see it, is a matter of education and travel. Take the case of the constable mentioned; he had lived in this little one-horse town all his life (nearly) and a change from what he had been used to almost drove him hysterical. To-day, he is compelled to grin and bear it. No one considers himself an outcast from the herd (as stated by “Sartor Resartus”) just because of his difference in dress. It may be more cot* rect to remember that every herd has its “leader,” and it is these leaders that bring to the herd what it should wear and what should be tabbed “out of date.” The young woman in Auckland was certainly striving to get as close to Nature a"s she possibly could. The rocks on the coast (if any) may have given her the impression that she was still back in the stone age—Yours, etc., _ BUSH LAWYER. March 14, 1939. TO TEX EDITOR OT TEX FXIXB. Sir, —I consider that the reasoning of “Sartor Resartus” is this case is incorrect. The Magistrate’s remarks and verdict plainly implied that (if the law permitted) our shameless, scantily-dressed bathers would receive the same penalty.—Yours, etc., THE TAILOR. March 14, 1939. GOWNS FOR STUDENTS TO THE EDITOR OF THE PXBBB Sir, —Three or four years ago the rule in force at the University by which every student was required to wear a gown to every lecture was modified so that students could wear gowas if they so desired, but there was no compulsion about it. Consequently, although a good number of women students wear them, yet practically none of the men students do. Now, the gowns are an integral part of any university and add dignity to all sugh institutions of learning. Could not this rule be brought back so that all students would have to wear them? They would certainly make a big difference to the atmosphere and appearance of Canterbury College as it is now.—Yours, etc., . STUDENT. March 14, 1939.