CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8882, 19 May 1892, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

GAMBLING. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l had intended writing sooner to express, as the fattier of a family, my intense appreciation of the Rev. Mr. Berry's sermon on "Gambling," but sickness prevented. Personally, I consider Mr. Berry's sermon a splendid deliverance on the subject of Rambling. The sermon was much needed, and will I feel sure, do a great deal of good. For the sake of the many young men who would hear the sdrmon at Pitt-street, and the many more who would read it as reported in the Herald, I was much gratified that Mr. Berry had preached so forcefully and well on the subject. If, as asserted by " Parent," the vice of gambling cannot bo " extirpated by lessons from the pulpit," it may at least be cheeked, and some young people saved from the dangerous habit by such pulpit deliverances as Mr. Berry's. Bub while expressing my appreciation of Mr. Berry's sermon, I wish at the same time to express my surprise that any person signing himself " Parent" should have the utter heartlessness to attempt to write apologetically on behalf of a vice which has ruined so many, and which in various ways is proving a family and social curse. Of course, there are parents and parents. For instance, a few weeks since the Herald contained an account of a parent in Auckland who turned his children out of house and home like so many dogs, to exist as best they might. Well that is one type of parent, and a very bad one; not so bad, however, as he who would attempt to buttress up a vice by arguments, however feeble and specious a vice which is rapidly becoming a much more formidable national evil than even the habit of taking intoxicating drinks as a beverage. I imagine, however, that the writer who signed himself " Parent" must mean that he is the " parent" of some gambling saloon, and not the " parent" of respectable young women and young men. In conclusion, I must express my endorsement of " Mercutio's" views on card playing and horseracing, as set forth in his notes of last Saturday. There is something very manly in his assertion, " 1 enjoy a game of cards, but I never play for money," &c. Let all young people re-read his statement in full. I, too, with many others, can play cards, chess, billiards, &c., by the hour—play with the utmost avidity and enthusiasm ; but we never dream of playing for money. Indeed, the introduction of stakes into the game would take away all its natural charm. When games cannot bo played without the introduction of stakes it proves that a vicious and dangerous passion has been developed, which, so far from being fostered, as " Parent" would have it, should be discountenanced and condemned by all lovers of their country, and well wishers ot the young.—l am, &c. Father. ABOLITION OF TRANSFER FEES. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In Monday's Herald I saw a lettef with the above heading, evidently written by someone having more than a passing interest in those half-crowns that help to tot up the salary of the legal manager. The argument of " Investor" is so powerful that it almost becomes unanswerable. For instance, he goes to show what gigantic commissions the brokers charge. What has this got to do with transfer fees, and what proof that the extra half-crown would be an advantage ? And " that transaction," which he would suppose to be 1000 shares, would give the broker £4 3s 4d. Why not suppose it 10,000, and multiply the sum by 10; it would look better. But let me suppose it to be 50, and then, as one broker may buy the shares and another may sell them, in which case the commission would be divided, this would give the brokers '2s Id each upon the transaction ; and I will prove, if desired, more fifties change hands than thousands. Suppose, for instance, a customer tells you to sell 50 Cambrias, f>o Trentons, 50 Lone Hands, 50 Consols, 50 May Queens, or 50 of any other mining scrip, what does the intending buyer say? " Oil, I can't be bothered with such small lots—the transfer fee runs away with all the profit there may be; and, besides, no one would buy them from me subject to a halfcrown fee."—l am, etc., A Broker, not a Legal Manager.

FACTORY INSPECTION. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Is the new inspector taking any action yet in the direction of inspection with a view to seeing that the provisions of the new Act are being enforced ? or is nothing being done? Can you inform me if there is any provision in this Act for allowing young persons to sit down occasionally when not employed ? lam told that in more than one retad and manufacturing establishment, so called juniors (earning about 7s Od per week), aged over 17, are not allowed to sit, but seniors are, and they only. Three quarters of an hour is allowed for them to go for their meals. It appears a cruelty to keep young growing females so many hours on their feet without provision for their occasional resting themselves on a seat. I should suggest the attention of Miss Morrison to this matter, as it materially affects the wage-earning class. Either way the public would like to know whether the Factory Act is in operation, or, like other Acts is only meant to ornament the Book of Statutes, beginning with talk and ending with talk !— am, etc., Practical.

FEMALE SUFFRAGE. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Can you or any of your correspom dents inform the public what has been done, or is likely to be done in reference to this just and necessary measure being properly represented in Parliament in the ensuing session? From Mr. Ballance's tricky conduct in reference to this question last year, and his suspicious and evasive reply to a Dunedin deputation, yesterday, as regards the probable action of the Government in the approaching session, it certainly behoves friends of female suffrage to be 011 the qui rive. _ Mr. Ballance has proved that he is politically a gentleman not to be trusted. As the celebrated author of the " Laws of the Liberal Federation," he has showed beyond all doubt that what he wants is not Liberalism, as generally understood, but that what he is after is, " to be kept in his office." —I am, &c., A Liberal. May 12, 1892.

WAITANGI NATIVE MEETING. TO THE EDITOR.

_ Sir, —In commenting upon the transao tions which took place at the native meeting lately held at Waitangi, Bay of Islands, in a leading article, you state that " the principal traffic on the road to Waitangi Falls is carried on by heavily-laden bullock owned by Maoris, and for the maintenance of this road the settlers are taxed 011 their property and for their dogs, while those who use them most are entirely exempt from taxation." \V ill you allow me. in simple fairness, to point out (1) that, although the bullockdrays mentioned are undoubtedly owned by Maoris, the traffic complained of is carried on entirely in the interest of the European storekeepers in the inland townships, who employ them as the most convenient means of transporting their stores and gum ; and (2) that the Dog Registration Act not being yet in force in the Bay of Islands district, the settlers are not taxed tor their dogs any more than the Maoris.— am, etc., Philip Walsh. Waimate North, May 11, 1892.

[The Maoris who use the roads for their bullock dravs may be working as contractors for storekeepers, but they are large landowners in the district, and they use the roads for their profit, and so, certainly, ought to pay rates. As for the Dog Registration Act, we understand from the discussion at the Waitangi meeting, that it had been held in abeyance on account of the Maoris.—Ed.]