CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10033, 21 January 1896, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

SOCIAL REFORM.' ' / TO THE EDITOR. •». Sir,—As a matter of bare justice I ask permission to reply to your continued strictures on the opponents of the C.I), Acts. It is simply not true that such opponents aro ' either indifferent or inactive with regard to the evils that infest Auckland. ~ It is rather hard that men and women who are among the hardest workers in every kind of reformative agency in the city and neighbourhood should be held up to abusive censure day by day as doing nothing simply because they do not support a measure which they hold it repugnant to every sense of decency and justice. It is not true either that any opposition is shown to the City Council in inquiring into the moral condition of Auckland. Personally, I hope they will extend the area of their inquiry so as to include the drink evil and the gambling evil, which are certainly not less destructive to morals than the evil of prostitution. It is well-known, however, that at least one of the objects of the present inquiry is to consider whether oi not the C.I). Acts should be re-introduced. The citizens of Auckland have been expressly invited to give their opinions on this subject. The opponents of the C.D. Acts are simply exercising their rights of citizenship in collecting and tabulating such evidence as in their judgment should satisfy the City Council that the attempt to re-introduce these Acts, or any like measure, would be a serious blunder. Such in brief is our position, and we shall continue to pursue the course on which we have entered quite undeterred, let me say, by the attempts at terrorism, hi the shape of abuse and misrepresentation made by any section of the Auckland press.— am. etc., January 18,1896. Wat. Jab. Williams. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your article of to-day is welcom# reading, in spite of its unworthy gibes, and sneers at men and women as devoted to the public weal as you are, because it appear! to indicate a change of policy on the part oi the Hkrald. With characteristic fairness you continue to assert that the opponents ol the loathsome C.D. Acts are doing nothing and caring nothing for the. work of rescue. You ought to know, and I find it hard to believe that you do not know, that this is utterly contrary to fact. It may serve its purpose and discredit the labours of your opponents in the esteem of a few of your readers who do not take pains to investigate the facts of the case but it cannot free you from the blame and the shame of attempting by the mere force of abuse aud false assertion to justify your defcnce of a system of Stateregulated immorality. In this city and throughout the world the most active and self-denying labourers in the ministry of saving the lost are also the most active in their opposition to the State regulation of vice. I am far from being convinced that the Rescue Society iu this city approves of your action in this matter. Some of its members are, I know, opposed to you. The Salvation Army in this city and every other city agrees with Mrs. liramwell Booth's verdict on the subject. They say truly that the C.D. Act is "the devil's masterpiece." Now, sir, let us take Dr. Johnson's advice and "clear our minds of cant." Do you, or do you not, wish the City Council to re-introduce the Act which makes it safe for men to sin ? Let us have a straight answer to that and we shall then know where we are. Do you wish your readers to understand that the Rescue Society desires tho enforcement of the C.D. Act ? Tell 119 plainly. Speaking for myself and for thoso acting with me, we are prepared to join hands with all who seek tho uplifting of tho' fallen, but there is one preliminary condition ; All attempts to re-introduce the C.D. Act or any other similar Act must be abandoned once for all. So long as help is sought in thai direction we shall strenuously resist thr attempt, and you may be assured we shall not labour iu vain.— am, etc., _ A. H. Collins, Ponsonby, January 18,1890. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,-In your subleader of the 13th inst., you affirm that " Those that say that existing laws, if put in force, are sufficient for the purposes required know that the statement is untrue." You then refer to the two Acts dealing with the treatment of children, and say they do not touch tho case." The impression left upon the casual reader, intentionally or from ignorance, is that these arc the only Acts relating to and giving power to deal with the evil in question. Allow mo to place against the_ above accusation and implication the opinion of one of the moat reliable and honoured legal authorities in this city—l might say in New Zealand. " You ask my opinion as to whether you are justified in affirming that the law as it now stands gives 'all the legal power that is necessary or desirable in relation to social vice, its purveyors, and victims?' This is a. very wide question, and involves the very debateable point of what iB desirable or necessary. According to my view, all that is desirable or necessary in the way of Stalt or police interference is, that prostitution shall not be allowed to flaunt itself openly in the streets and other public places. And this is provided for by section 23, sub-section 1, of the Police Offences Act, 1884, which provides that'any common prostitute who loiters and importunes passengers in or npou any public place for the purpose of prostitution, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty of two pounds, or to imprison* ment for any term nor- exceeding one month.' This provision, with those of sections 22 to 29 of the Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1884, in my opinion, will meet all necessary requirements."— am, etc., Edwin CoxJanuary 18,1896.

INQUIRIES INTO WRECKS. TO THE KDITOK. .

Sir,—ln your Thursday's issue it is stated that the Minister of Marine, in response to a requisition signed by a large number of ship, masters, had reduced the term of the snspen siou of the certificate of Captain Wilson ol the. Fifeshire, from three months to one month, from which one would infer that the Minister was of opinion that the Court ol Enquiry had acted with undue severity towards that gentleman. Into the merits of this case I do not desire to enter, but from these decisions being altered or altogetlic! set aside, it appears that the manner in which they are at present conducted, does not give general satisfaction. It is a monstrous proposition tl at a certificate which requires six years of service and study to obtain, should b» liable to suspension or cancellation by a Court composed of any two persons who happen to be in the commission , \ of the peace, or by one Resident Magistrate, with the concurrence of one nautical assessor. Clause 19 of the Act under which these enquiries are held states: — " This Act shall not apply to ships belonging to Her Majesty." I should think not, indeed.' I venture to assort that naval officers would resign their commissions ero they would submit them to a tribunal such as I have just mentioned. In a former letter I stated that although cases under review might be identical yet the decisions were as far as the poles asunder. For example, the Ocean Mail some yei«rs ago was wrecked at: Chatham Islands, shortly after leaving Wellington ; and in consequence the master's certificate was cancelled by two justices at the Chathams. Last year the Jesse Readman wis wrecked at the same island shortly after leaving Napier, but the master was acquitted of all blame. The ship City of Auckland, bouud from London to Napier, made Cape Farewell about noon, and a, few hours afterwards ran ashore- and wai wrecked near Manawatu. Yet the Court at Wellington returned the master his certifi. cat*. Now mark the difference with which Captain Cromarty was treated. His vessel touched a _ rock somewhere about Cape Palliser during a fog, but received little or 110 damage, owing to the precautions takeD by the master, yet the Court sitting at. Welling, ton suspended the. master's certificate for three months.—lam, etc., Thomas Fernandez. OARS VERSUS SAIL. TO THE KDITOK. Sir,— late terrible Kaipara boatiat tradegy, ought surely to be well remembered I>V all pleasure or picnic boating parties. Fatal accidents certainly form a powerful argument in favour of the < use of oars in place of sails ; and, if put into practice the risk or danger would then in every single case be reduced to only a minimum. And why not? If the rowing were but included as a portion of the day's programme, it would then make but a small dificrcnce to the whole day's enjoyment. The needful labour could be lightened by arranging beforehand for at . least two seta of rowers, and possibly one set v of these could be healthy young women! 'J What with treacherous winds from hilly cliffs, or bays, etc., and sudden squalls; ' i* l ;,; a mixed picnic boat party becomes highly 1 rißky. Of necessity such parties are usually merry or jolly, and consequently for the , 'C' time being thoughtless of any danger, and in ) this the manager or managers of the boat naturally more or less share; or, to state the least, their attention becomes almost unconsciously diverted and ' then,. alas, the unthought-of occurs, and without any note of warning. Supposing, that the journey were prolonged by one short hour, would not the almost certain, guarantee of safety • (D.V.) form a sufficient compensation! Yes, yes, indeed 1 a hundred time.?, yes 1 And let 7 the Bails be left where they cannot bo used. ' ; —I am, etc.,--a ' : N.Z. y •-•/••• — .