LETTERS TO EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 105, 28 January 1929, Page 12

LETTERS TO EDITOR

THE MARKETS FIRE Sir, —In your issue of to-day’s date it is stated that at yesterday’s meeting of the Fire Board a report was tabled to the effect that the repairs to the Leyland engine, which was allowed to become overheated during the fire; had cost £45. I should be glad if you would in-sert-a definite denial of this statement. I have the authority of Superintendent Creeke-for- stating that the Leyland engine, which ran continuously through the period of the fire, gave every satisfaction and no trouble whatever. The engine which gave rise to the' overheating in question was'of another make. In justice to my company I am sure that you will insert this correction. —I am, etc., DUNCAN F.-.BAUCHOP, Manager for N.Z., Leyland Motors Ltd. Wellington, January 26. NOISY WORK IN MID-CITY Sir,—l ' was , interested to reat the remarks in your City anc Surbiirban column from the pen of one who signs himslf “Brain Worker,’! appearing in your issue of yesterday. and if he had not made it appear so obvious that the sun shines for his individual benefit only, I should have felt inclined to sympathise with him. I would, however.,like, to present the case for the other “Brain Worker,” . the Boilermaker responsible for the “Infernal-Row” referred to. To him. the. racket of the pneumatic .hammer means “work,” with all it stands for to him and those dear to him. “Brain Worker”, claims that the real 'hardship is with those who spend their days in adjacent, offices. Has it ever occurred to him that the “racket” may be quite’ as unpleasant to the. brain- and nerves of the tradesmen who work in or on the job in ultimate contact with the ring’of .the steel plates, and the din of the pneumatic tools. It would, perhaps, too, be well for “Brain Worker” to reflect that the same class of work has been carried on in the works referred to for over half a .century, and all the workers with brain and brawn desire is to be allowed to pursue their avocations in peace, comfort, and noise; if noise is unavoid-able.—-I am, etc..' “BRAIN AND MUSCLE WORKER.” Wellington, January 25. “SHORTSIGHTED POLICY” Sir,—From'-time to time figures are made available showing the amount and destination of' New Zealand’s exports, and even r a cursory inspection of those figures "suffices to' show how' the great bulk of bur' exports' go to Great Britain. For instance, for eleven months ended November 30 last, exports from. New Zealand' totalled £51,805,163. Of this amount ho less than £37,414,151 were to Great' Britain, £3,207,837 went to Australia,’.and £2,051,427 to Canada. Unemployment or slackness of trade in tthe Old Country must therefore have a marked influence on the'returns New Zealand receives from her exports, particularly those of foodstuffs. Apart from any consideration of fair play, loyalty or reciprocity, is it not downright bad business for the New Zealand public to give the support it does .to products of foreign countries, when the purchase of manufactures of the United Kingdom materially assists 1 prosperity in the country, peopled by the customers of New Zealand. With the > successful marketing of our primary products absolutely dependent on the industrial activity and commercial prosperity ,of Great Britain, surely it is a pernicious, 1 short-sighted policy for the public of this country to purchase any commodity other than those that are.manufactured by the ' people who purchase and consume. New ' Zealand exports. 1 . * When Britain was in the throes of post-war reconstruction, it may have been possible to criticise some of her manufactures as not being as well suited to Dominion requirements as those of 1 certain foreign countries'that had not suffered the same war disorganisation as ' Great Britain. But that state of affairs 1 has long since been recti Bed. Manufactures of Great Britain to-day take second place to none. It is all very well for New Zealanders to rejoice over the price of wool or but- ! ter or stock, but while doing so it is as ‘ well to remember that’ good prices lire ’ only possible so long as the workpeople , oi Great Britain enjoy a good measure , of employment. Let industrial prospenty falter in Great Britain and only , too quickly win it be reflected in the prices paid -for New Zealand produce. Let us all support the country which sup- , ports us, if only, because it is “good busi- . ness.’ —I am, etc., PRO NEW ZEALAND. ! W elhngton, January 26. , '. . .. . . ar . ..: “ '-. . I < THE UNIVERSITY AND THE 1 . . STATE ■' Sir,—Your editorial in to-day’s paper 1 criticising statements in the address of f the Chancellor of. the New Zealand University seems-to, me to call for an immediate reply setting out the actual facts. I am^not- a member of the Council of the. New Zealand University and therefore Jiave not a : first-hand • knowledge of .all its affairs, but I understand the actual, position is as I am .now, set-'

ting out... .. ... . As you. state, the university has for many years had a statutory annual grant of £4OOO for'its;general.'purposes which, considering the ..important ..functions it performs in the direction of. conducting examinations, for matriculation, .scholarship and-degrees, and. the. providing of scholarships, seems to be.'a very moderate subsidy." For some few. years, however, mainly by reason of the very large number sitting for the matriculation examinations, the fees paid to. the university in connection" with examinations have enabled a surplus to be shown, and the university, instead of expending, this surplus in providing additional scholarships, which at the time it considered unnecessary. has accumulated these surpluses so as to provide a capital endow'ment, the interest of which is applied 'in providing scholarships. This seems to me to be a proper and businesslike proceeding, and the council is surely to be commended for such a careful administration of the resources of the university. The Act of last session, abolished the statutory grant and substituted a provision depending on an annual Parliamentary appropriation. This, of course, means that whether the university receives any grant depends upon the annual recommendation of the Education Department officials. ■lt expresses a. disapproval of the careful management of the university authorities in the past and is a plain indication that until they have spent their accumulated fund they will get no more. It also places the administration of the university, conducted bv gentlemen (mostly appointed by the GovernmentT'-without rew'nrd ' and purely from patriotic motives under the supervision- a nd" control of a State Department which you rightly term “bnreniicratic.T • There is a growing feeline among governing bodies of the kind that if the institution Tinder their care is to receive fair treatment it is inadvisable by careful - ' management to keen ’ down exnenditure and show surpluses and that consideration is mnsf likely to be given to “noody” institutions which show deficiencies. I would also point out that the objection to the funding of surnlus moneys is ouite inconsistent with the principle of section. 21 of. the. University Act of 1026. whichprovides : that all Government subsidies, to voluntary gifts must be funded.—l am; etc,. -- • ;.. T > ,..LEVT,... Chairman. Victoria University College. Wellington. January 24.