LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17957, 6 December 1921, Page 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THOSL WHARF.'SHEDS. < Sir,—"Citizen," and in a measure Mr I'. Virtue seem to tako it that I am a sort of champion for the Harbour Board. Let me, in justice to the board, say that I have no such thought of acting as such. Neither the chairman nor any member of the board has spoken to me on the subject of the sheds. It seemed »o me that a fuss was being made out of very little; hence my first letter. For "Citizen, '* he has threatened the board with retribution at next election. Perlnps members are trembling. I am, personally, too insignificant to threaten, so a public institution—the Sailors' Home, in which 1 am known to be keenly interested is got at. "Citizen" says: "No one would take exception" to the sheds being [.laced or the old dock site. Perhaps not. He also says he is positive the chairman will not be so foolish as to ignore the wish of the petition. For reasons above stated I do not know what the chairman may do— nothing foolish I hope. I have again lookeß at. the sheds, and am convinced they bear evidences againßt Mr Virtue's assumption that they will remain where they are for eight years. The future of • the old dock site is a little beside the question just now. ' H. Stmoxs. December 5, 1921. THE MAYOR AND MR. HALL SKELTON. Sir,—l think it will be admitted by everybody that Mr. Gunson, a* Mr. Gunson, has a right to, sign a testimonial to Mr. Manila], Gandhi, Archbishop Mannix, or anybody else, but when he signs in his capacity as Mayor I. in common with every other citizen of Auckland, have a right to protest. Therefore when Mr. Hall Skeltou, armed with a testimonial signed by the Mayor of this city, left New Zealand to attend what we understand to be a gathering of iiinn Feiners in Paris, it ought to be clearly specified that this testimonial was signed by Mr. Gunson in i his private capacity and not as Mayor, I was very pleased to see we still have come city councillors with enough backbone to i" take a stand in this matter and let the world know that they did not sign it. Now if Mr. Skelton were going to Wellington or Dunedin it would not matter much, but one can imagine the impression such a document signed by the 'Mayor of New Zealand's largest city would have in a foreign country like France. There is quite enough propaganda spread about already to make tne outside world believe that this Dominion 'is favourable to Sinn Feinism, wherea s it is supported by a very small," but very noisy, minority. Francis Hull.

CIVIL REDUCTIONS. Sir,—Referring to letters appearing in the Herald on the subject of ail the civil scrvice otticers' salaries beini reduced, I have 110 doubt the Governmnt would not do this unless •it was a real necessity owing to the present financial condition of the country, and my advice to the officers is to put the best face on it, and not gripble and complain. If the Government feels justified in saying to all public servants: "We know you worthy of your salaries, but the financial condition of tha country is such that it obliges us to Take 10 for cent, off all salaries over a certain amount," then it should give reasons why the deduction .should be made from only one, class of the public instead of all. To be just, if it is necessary to deduct from incomes of public servants, then it is right and proper that deductions should be made from the incomes of the balance of the public. All that is necessary is to require all persons to give returns of their incomes over a certain amount. Then all the public [ays income tax, where it is payable, whether on salary or from a business or other occupation. Say a public servant's salary was £1000, and that of a person not in tho service was the same. Firstly a deduction of 10 per cent. (£100) would be made from the public servant and retained by the Government, and he would pay (axes on £900. The other person's salary or income of £1000 would b'e treated as if it were £900 for tho purpose of taxation, and he would pay taxes on that amount plus the 10 per cent, deduction on the £1000. This would bo equal taxation of all the public ana not punishing ono class of the public. I should like to hear reasons against this if there are any. There would be no extra cost of oollecting. Equity.

MARKETING OF PRODUCTS. Sir,—l have discussed with friends here some suggestions' on the following lines, and at their request send them for publication, hoping that they may possibly give a lead to those responsible. Broadly speaking, it appears that two important factors of the present congestion;might be dealt with at once, and without the formation of farmers' shipping companies, etc. Let ud say to the British Government, " The meat and butter which you hold and which is deteriorating through age should bo marketed. We are prepared to pay a tax equivalent to id per lb. for every Id. which' you are prepared to knock off the price on the sale of produce so that it may be sold." In practice this wotild mean that if beef had cost the British Government 6d, they would sell it for 4Jd to get it out of store, and we would put a tax of id per lb. on our new season's %ieat, tjhis amount to be payable pound for pound. Something should be done with butter. At the present moment not only in the sale of produco affecting the quantity eaten or consumed, but, worse still, is prejudicing the good name of New Zealand produce. If our meat to-day is worth, for argument's sake, 4Jd, it should, with the old stuff out of thi way and prime quality onco more avaihble, soon increase tremendously in price. The id per lb. which we paid would be u very mail matter. Another point which appears to me to be a matter of simple deduction is the continued utilisation of lioiidon as our port. We are informed that our new season's butter has not been sold in London owing to congestion at the 'docks. Very well, let us send no more to this place. How often would a purchaser continue to go to a shop where he was kept waiting for an unconscionable time, and when served received but the poorest attention ? Let us :ay to the West of England ports, " Give us a fair deal, and you shall have our business." To show what may be done, I may say. that, during the war, a concern with which I was connected habitually bought in London, took it to the West of England, and, after paying all charges, njade 10 per cent, on the transaction. A,great deal more might be said to elaborwb the two points mentioned, but I do not wish to intrude unduly on ( yofrt* space. I hold no brief for any particular part of the Old Country, but, having soirle knowledge of the business, I am quite confident that the point? mentioned are capable of being developed to a tremendous advantage. N. G. Gribble. Hamilton.

TARIFF COMMISSION'S REPORT! report of the Tariff Commission supports Frederick List's theory that there aro three stages in a nation's development, the second stage being the one which callfi for protection to foster manufactures. .1 wonder if the commission have gone carefully into the question whether a customs tariff does or does not encourage secondary-industries generally, or whether they have taken this "fostering" theorv "as read" in the way most people do who are ignorant of fiscal economics? Protection, whatever its fostering effects may bo in one direction, certainly discourages manufacturing (1) by increasing costs; (2) by inducing manufacturers to lean on the tariff instead of on their own, initiativo and resource, and (3) by setting up certain industries which the country (for the time being, >at any rate), would be very much better without. Now, if List's theory is correct, a country, entering the second stage of its development, should impose prohibitive afterwards reducing the rates year by year until trade is once more free. Has anyone ever heard of a protectionist Government adopting such a policy Tho exact reverse is . what happens. A small duty is found .sufficient L for a start, the rates being increased from

time to time because the manufacturers state that foreign competition threatens to drive them out of the market. Does the Tariff Commission consider America ripe for free trade yet? How long has China had protection, and when will she enter the third stage? The fact is that List's theory is a determined attempt to find some excuse, sound or unsound, for a, policy against which " the arguments ... are overwhelming." As for New Zealand, if there is one thing desirable above all others, it is the fostering of our export trade. Tariffs for protection are specially designed to keep out imports, and as (in the words of J. L. Garvirf) " every import mast develop an export.'' it is clear that protection kills exports. It also raises the cost of living all round, and these two facts should De sufficient to condemn it Once and for all. C.H.N.

NURSES' WORKING HOURS. Sir,—The member for Grey Lynn claims to be a " Labourite,'' yet he apparently " pulls with the hare and runs with the hound." Surely, in asking re the working hours of private hospital staffs, he must know something of his subject. Does he realise that: (1) No one appreciates the private hospital more than the nurse employed therein, whoso one aim is (if her heart is in her wfork, and if! she is ever likely to become a nurse)., experience and training; (2) that the hours are shorter and the duties less arduous iv. private hospitals than in public institu tions, and that for every one patient in a private hospital a nurse has from one to 20 or more in a public hospital; (3) that in private hospitals, especially maternity, there are many occasions when the home is without patients, but the salaries and working expenses have still to be met; (4) thatjn maternity homes, nature has to have her own time, and it' a nurse wants experience (what use is she without it) she must be prepared to go on duty when nature calls, not when "Labourites" think fit. If she prefers to stick to given hours, who gets the experience and training? Why, the matron whose early knowledge was gained in far harder schools than ours, and who must be always ready no matter what hour of the day or night; (5) that extra staffs have to be kept, as wcmld br the case under the hon. member's fixed hour racket, who would beir the nece?»ary extra. cost? Why, the working man every time, and yet this is whom the hon. member professes to represent. Does increasing the already high cost of living mean faithful representation of Labour? A Woman Voter. :