Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 9 May 1941, Page 4

Readers Write

Please allow me space for a final word re this subject. “Real Farmer,” ‘‘Patriotic Farmer, 1 " and our old » friend, “ Freedom DOCTORS AND Farmer,” have all DEMOCRACY, had their say. Let me point out one obvious defect in all their letters. They are not concerned about the subject under discussion; they merely attack the Government cf the day for endeavouring to carry out the wishes of the people regarding medical benefits. They put party politics before British principles. Their letters admit it.

They, do this, Mr Editor, in a democratic country which is fighting for its very existence against the enemies of the principles of democracy we stand for. , '

Mr Churchill, who has been called to lead the Empire out of the muddle caused by the class of view your writers represent, and at the same time defeat our common enemy, has said that the system the German leaders stand for, and not the German people, must be destroyed, and that system boasts utterly to destroy democracy.

Under the Nazi system, the people cannot decide what sort of medical requirements they require and are prepared to pay for. Hitler decides for them. ' The doctors of this country, decided for us. Therein lies the danger.

“Freedom,” “Real,” and “Patriotic,” farmers all, deliberately ignore that fact. I am prepared to say that no political party in the British Empire would support such tactics. These writers are not fair to their own political party even. One final word to “Freedom Farmer.” I am not a Communist because I oppose the principles of the doctors of this, country. I will say, however, that in the pre-war days, Hitler always swore to destroy Communism, nnd we believed him, to our sorrow. Why do the enemies of democracy always adopt the same tactics? Inaccuracies, half-truths and untruths are their chief weapons. We know how to treat them and their statements in the future. AGAIN.”

Two letters of recent dates have appeared in the "Advocate” re the travelling expenses of one of the borough represenHARBOUR BOARD tatives on the ELECTION. Whangarei Har-

bour Board. “Ratepayer’s" letter I will pass over, as I have no desire to agitate the spinal weakness which makes it ne-> cessary for him to conceal his identity. Mr Thompson’s letter, however, merits a reply, in fairness, especially, to the member concerned, as there is nothing to conceal. Indeed, I think quite ample publicity has previously been given to clarify the whole position. Mr Gardner (who, it must be obvious to all, is the member concerned), was first returned as a borough representative in 1529. At that time he was residing at Kamo. The unfortunate death of a brother necessitated his removal to the Helensville district. At the expiration of his term, he suggested retiring from the board. Pressed by friends and supporters, who recognised in him one of the heaviest ratepayers in the town, he again consented to nomination, and was again returned.

In view of the extra travelling necessary to attend meetings of the board, Mr Gardner was entitled to charge mileage both ways to and from meetings. However, he drew expenses incurred one way only up till two years ago, when, after consultation with the Audit Department, he? collected the full amount to which he was entitled. At the last election, the question of his expenses was given prominence. Still lie retained his seat on the board, the electors evidently believing that his ability as a member, his faith in the future of the harbour district, his desire for progress. and his standing as one of the heaviest ratepayers in the borough, far outweighed the question of his travelling expenses. May I here state that there is no call at pi'esent on the ratepayers to pay members’ travelling expenses, and, in the event of a land rate being collected, Mr Gardner would, as one of the largest ratepayers, contribute a proportionately large amount to his own expenses. In conclusion, Mr Gardner’s nomination on this present occasion was forwarded as a safeguard against the return of any person who, in his opinion, would not work in co-opera-tion to further the interests of the harbour, the district and Northland as a whole. The nomination was forwarded on the distinct understanding that if a suitable candidate came forward Mr Gardner would withdraw his nomination. This, I understand, has been, done, in view of Mr Reyn- j olds’ candidature, thus saving the ratepayers the expense of an election for harbour board representatives for the borough. This will, I trust, gratify the desires of Mr Thompson and “Ratepayer.”—E. L. WHIMP.