READERS WRITE

Northern Advocate, 1 October 1938, Page 13

READERS WRITE

Your correspondent, “Baptist,” is evidently charmed with the beauty of the rose, and keen to smell its fragrance, without reROSE AND membering the thorns THORNS, and briars from which it grows, and which he knows pi'ick the skin and sometimes poison the blood of its victims. Even sc, I would have him “beware of false prophets,” etc. (St, Matt. 7-15 and 16). Christians do not fear the Labour Government. Neither do they fear its humanitarian legislation, but they do fear the foe of Christianity, which is Socialism, and which some members of the Labour Government have unmistakably uttered as their ultimate goal. It is also evident that the pastor whom “Baptist" cites is not too careful with whom he associates, These in so many instances seek to Jgnore the Ten Commandments, and have openly declared themselves in favour of idolatry and its licentious pastimes, notably . golf, tennis, cricket, etc., being indulged in upon God’s ordained Sabbath Day. No ob-.

jection’ ‘ fi’ffir be taketT" to ~ bur new social security laws. We can only fear the fragrance and beauty that they attract us with, ! and beguile us into the network of Socialism that surrounds them.—“FRONT COG.”

I wish to thank you for publishing my Itcter and questions for Mr Nash in your paper of Monday, September

26. Mr Nash cncse CHALLENGE TO to ignore my MR., BARCLAY • questions, .although I sent him. a copy cf my letter by express postal delivery, so he cannot deny receiving it. I knew a Minister of the Crown may exercise his prerogative, and refuse to answer awkward questions when not addressing his own electors. Although Mr Barclay is still M.P. for Marsden, he cannof like Mr Semple, claim Parliambnury privi-! lege, as he is soliciting the suffrages of Marsden electors.

I challenge Mr Barclay to answer in the Town Hall tonight the four questions I asked Mr Nash in my letter of the 26th inst. Mr Nash and Mr Barclay hove had nearly a week to consider a reply to my letter, so will have no reasonable excuse for not answering them tonight.. If Mr Barclay does not give clear and correct answers to those questions, I will answer them myself through the columns of your paper in a few days’ time.

I am just as well aware as Mr Barclay and Mr Nash are that the correct answers will cost Mr Barclay and this Socialistic Government a lot of votes, but if Mr Barclay forces me to answer them for him it will cost his party a lot more votes. I further challenge Mr Barclay to prove, in his address tonight, that the above confiscation of land is not part of the Socialistic policy of the Labour Government,

I am taking care that Mr Barclay will have a copy of this letter, and mine of the 26th, handed to him tonight in the Town Hall.—S. C. CRAWFORD.

Re Mr Nash and his speech, commented on by “Gnomon.” Firstly; it was I who asked the question, which was brought about by ' SOCIAL the National Party saySECURITY. ing it was most unfair to

tax the civil servants twice. I claim that the Government, or any other body, including county councils, who gather a portion of the pay of such servants are creating an equity for them when dismissed for age or service reasons.

The farmer, or other worker, does likewise when he puts his savings into his farm or home, which many workers have done in past years only to see the same equity go in an engineered slump. Now, had the farmer or ether workers been paying into the Social Security Fund, as suggested, they, like the civil servant, would be doing, just the same thing for the same privileges proposed. Any man who has had the experience of losing his life’s Savings must be satisfied that had he made the contribution suggested he would not feel quite a pauper among his fellow men. It certainly must be annoying to some to know they are prevented from grabbing the extra pence collected.

Mr Nash told us what some of the gangers get as superannuation—'about £BO a year. How does that compare with Mr Sterling’s £I4OO, and who lost the most sweat to gain same? Do we ever think of the responsibility the ganger carries? Our lives depend on him, I think, more than any other branch of the railway, and this superannuation contribution allows him the magnificent sum of £BO. At 5 per cent., this constitutes his life’s savings of £IBOO. Wonderful, is it not? I believe he gets Christmas Day and Good Friday for holidays. I will not comment on the 11,000 lbs of butterfat mentioned by Mr Nash, as we can produce more by nearly la third. If the hex’d was like some I know it would put a third on to'that with the same laboux’, and we could go to town quite often to share the i-eturns with our business friends of all political colour. However, slirnps without security will always put the receivers of superannuation on the box seat.

Thei’e are many other besides Government employees who conti’ibute to a fund. Good luck to them for their foresight. Let us emulate them by putting some of our money into a •safer investment—social security, in preference to pauperism that those of

age are experiencing, brought about by the 1921 and last slumps. The wants of “Gnomon” could be supplied by the importation of Chinese, for they are good gardeners, which we as farmers don’t seem to think worth while.—C. T. FLYGER.

Events during the last few days have shown clearly that the Reds, in the words of Popeye, “can’t take it.” When NationHECKLERS AND al Party speakers THEIR WAYS. are assailed by a

barrage of interruption and noise, and endeavours are made to prevent them from speaki’ng at all, the Labour Party can see nothing wrong with it. But when Labour Party -‘speakers have their remarks challenged, and interjectors politely disagree with their views, it is described as a National Party plot. Mr Richards, speaking at Mount Albert, met with a few interjections, and said that he had been given a hint that the Nationalists had organised opposition to him. Mr Semple’s wild statements in Christchurch met with interjections, and the Mayor of Christchurch,- ’a well-known Labour' man-

who is also a Labour candidate, in the i hope of getting sympathy, alleged over j the air that he, too, had been given the | usual hint that the Nationalists had planned it. On Tuesday night, 'Mr Langstone, at Te Awamutu, met with interjections which he replied to by saying: “What a bag I’d have got, had I brought my Keating’s.” But when, at the end of the meeting, the audience showed that it was not in sympathy with Labour, a Labour, man rushed to the microphone and yelled out something about National Party organised obstruction. The injustice of this remark will be realised by those who listened in, for they know that although there were a few interjections, Mr Langstone was given a fair hearing throughout, and there was nothing in the way of obstruction, organised or otherwise. > The rumour that there was going to be organised interruption at Mr Barclay’s meeting tonight is another case of the Government supporters trying to discount in advance the nationwide swing against Socialism. A few spontaneous interjections will be called “a Nationalist plot.” Definitely the Reds “can’t take it.”—“FAIR PLAY.”

Travelling in Nazy Germany.

“There was no doubt about our arrival in Germany,” writes Mr G. Grant, a Dunedin school teacher on exchange in England, telling of a trip to the Continent last April. “Swastika flags, streamers and placards were everywhere. The railway engines had swastika flags painted on them, and the slogan, ‘One country, one people, one leader,’ was demonstrated everywhere. The one and only salutation in Germany, and now in Austria, whether one is in if shop, cafe, hotel, train, or tram is always ‘Heil, Hitler,’ on entering and leaving. It is positively overpowering to one not used to it, and it was quite a relief to get into another country.