PUBLIC OPINION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6489, 8 April 1908, Page 5

PUBLIC OPINION

MR DOTH IE AND MB HISLOP

(To tho Editor “N.Z. Times,’’)

Sir, —So far wo iAive boon discussing tho widening of Willis street up to Manners street. Mr iUslop this morning introdnoru the widening as far only as to Merror street, but that does not affect tiie question bet ween us. iiy his speeches and lotto™ ho hud set out to show that ■Mr A itken’s action was a gainst the public interest and that I, tho latter’s intimate friend, benefited by bis vote and especially by being permitted thereby to build up to tlio street line. Mr Jlislop's efioi'tri to prove all this have not, I fear, diooloHod an enviable disposition. As a result of the Council vote mv Trooadero property was taken. Now, 1 had bought this, not to own a restaurant, but betimes to connect my two leaseholds, and my business intentions were so thwarted. My offer to give tho Council tho advantage of my intended alterations wn rejected, and my successors will eomo dav have their business interrupted for mouths while this widening is carried out. , , This morning this learned barrister repeats that I was advantaged by being permitted to rebuild to tho street line. There was no question of my being allowed ; i lease and pay rent for those ten fret, and have a complete right ,to use it.

In place of being favoured by Mr Aitken’s vote, its result was entirely antagonistic to my intereote, and Mr Hielop’s suggestion of ten underlying collueion has no shadow of warrant and is not, to his credit. I am not aware of tho reasons, beyond what has been mentioned, that induced tho decision of tho Council. The subject has never been discussed between Mr Aitken tind myself, but I am certain ho acted throughout in entire accord with Ids honest judgment as with that of the five other councillors. Mr Uislop is illogical in accusing Mr Aitken as acting in my interest while failing to bliow how t was benefited, I will not threaten him with an action over tills, ‘.is it I did so 1 would mean it, but ho owes us both an ample apology ami f will leave his conduct to bo judged by public opinion. Mr lliolop, on my mention of the Heath estate, again turns and blames Mr Aitken. 1 asked what ho hud done daring tho throe years since ho had been Mayor? That lie, by tho subdivision, and bv his inertness, rendered tho widenin'' a "practical impossibility, and is ti whv ho now talks of only widening up to Mercer street? . , . Then, 1 hod drawn attention to Ins conduct as a solicitor, in publishing for his political purposes that I was one of tho Wellington Publishing Company’s directors. It is truo that 1 have been eo for some weeks, and tho whole world is welcome to know it; still, it etiquette wtu* not a term strong enough for him, I will substitute and tMy timi his use of his partnership information was unprofessional, and tho directors may well look for an explanation at his or Ills Partners' April 7th. A CORRESPONDENT IN REPLY. (To tho Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir,—Your unotious correspondent ‘'Temperance” "strongly protests against the Town Hall being let for secular addresses on Sundays, and no instances Mr Keir Hurdle's lecture as a cnee in point. Well, X was one of the two thousand Odd who listened to Keir Bardie that Sunday night, and 1 noticed such typical citizens as the Rev. Frank Xsitt. the Hon. B. McNab, Mr P. J, O'Began, and Mr John Hutcheson there, and they seemed deeply interested —more deeply, X am sure, than they would be if they were listening to tome sanctified preacher of "The Word ’ declaiming about “the derriuk torafuc, and "the cause of terruth.” I must say that there was a lot of really sound and practical Christianity in Mr Kardfe’s address, and your correspondent—that If there is any chance of reclaiming Mm from the barren wilderness of puritanism—would have benefited by it if he had hoard the "sermon.” Personally, I decline to believe that the majority of our citizens would offer any opposition to tho uao of tho Town Hall on Sundays for such lectures. I see my lances have pierced the adamantine cuticle of Mr F. M. B, Fisher, for in to-day's issue of the “Times” ho waxes indignant that I should criticise him. Mr Fisher sneers at me for making haste to coi-rect a misstatement to which I had unwittingly committed myself in saying that Mr Aitken had rot assisted to receive Fa flier Hays. Permit me to say that most people consider it manly to own up to a mistake, but Mr Fisher’s record shows that such is not his way of looking at things. He has repeatedly delved into the dungheap of scandal, but has never cnee proved himself right, nor has he ever onco apologised to anyone. I need only refer to his strenuous and unglorious attack on the Into Premier, his public sneers at Mr Mark Cohen for being a Jew, his attack in tho House on Sir Joseph Ward about tho employment of a clerk in the Tourist Department, ;nd hia recent series of attacks on the Hon. T. W. Uislop. . Let yonr readers note tho difference between him, tho man who prefers water to alo, and me, the man who prefers ale to water. I accused Mr Aitken of holding aloof from Father Hays. A gentleman who Was on the Hays Receiption Committee assured mo I was wrong, and at once I wrote a correction. Is there anything in that to justify Mr Fisher’s strictures? Still. I freely own I like my glass of beer. Beer was tho national beverage of the good old Britons before tho’modern craze of prohibition was invented, for prohib’tion of tho safe of beer is newer even than Methodism. John Wesley never advocated tho prohibition of beer, though ho did oppose tho Use and sale of tea! What a time he would have of it nowadays if ho nut in an appearance at a No-licenso "bun light!” Good old human nature remains much the same, anyhow, in spite of changes of fashion in religion, rant, and clothes. I frankly own myself one of the old school.—l am, etc., * , CHEESE AND BEE®. April 7th. MR FISHER AND HIS CRITICS. (To the Editor "N.Z. Tlme3.’‘) , Sir.—-It is amusing, to say the least, to read m your columns, day after day, the _ small fry” snapping at Mr Fisher in Ins controversy with the Mayor. Mr Fisher may be wrong, possibly ho may he right; but he certainly has the courage of his oninioDe, at all events, and does not skulk behind a “nom de plume like “Manawatu" and others. If they want to criticise the man, why don't they do it openly? However, I do not know Mr Fisher; in fact, I have never seen him, to mv knowledge, and I have no doubt he is quite capable of dealing with his critics if ho considered them worth it. But in case he does not. I would like to point out to "Manawatu" that Mr Fisher was dealing with facts "at tho time,” not with tho values now. or what they will be in twenty years’ time. The authorised valuer put a certain value on the “land,” and a certain amount was loaned on that valuation (not on the character of the individual). 'Was tho transaction a good one at the time ? Or could any other firm have got tho same advance on tho margin shown? As I am not criticising Mr Fisher I will adopt the same tactics as “Manawatu.” —I am. etc.. BEN NEVIS. April 6th.

IMPARTIAL EFFECTIVENESS. (To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —Mr Atkinson’s somewhat involved explanation of his "impartial” attitude "between the two.” which position ho is into one of giving an

"effective” rote, implies loose writing and careless thinking. If "effective,” his vote settles the election! His choice of these adjectives is unfortunate. His obleclion to the fact that he, when a legislator, was a party man (and he has not “changed his spots” even now) is outside the question. Let him hunt up his lexicons and trace the true purport of his words, and he will find the phrase "six and half-a-dozen” a just description. No doubt the attribution of party is where the shoo pinches. But what pan von expect in what Sairey terms "this’ pilgrin’s projesa of a niortial wale"?—l am, etc., JOHN BUNION. April 7th. i ME KEIR HARDEE. (To the Editor "N.Z. Times.") Sir, —I trust that youTl permit mo a short space in your valuable paper with regard to Wellington’s Mayoralty. I, as" a worker, and many other workers, had not forgotten the muddle prior to tire arrival of Keu* Hardie. We as workers must admit that it was the intention of many councillors, etc., to decline a reception to Keir Haidie because ho was the workers adviser, but all at once Mr Hislop took the bull by tho horns. Mr Hislop proved himself tho workers friend by giving a hearty April 7th. LAND AND LABOUR. (To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir,—ln y olir issue of the 3rd insl. "Wairima” attempts a rep'y e t Working Man,” who alluded to the ex istenco of a "corner” in land. IVairima" says that “no sane person supposes that the innumerable landlords m Wellington have any sort of combination,** Permit me to say that such nn inference did not seem to me to b© deducible from “Working Man s letter. It is merely the critic who requires correction. The fact is that the existing system of allowing: a few private P eT ®JJ?® to appropriate what is rightfully public property produces all toe cjiccts ox an espressfy arranged “comer' in lane. The continual expectation of an early advance in land values, by inducing landlords to hold for land out of use, produces all the ©fleets of a compact among landlord* not to sell until a certain point has been reached. The prno* tical result is the same as if landlords hod formed a “combine" or “trust," and hacl pledged themselves to hold their land until higher prices were obtainable. Of course there is no “corner" in land in the cense meant “Wairima," and were he aa familiar with Henry George’s writings as “Working Mail evidently is, ho would not require to be corrected. I may add that I have read with much pleasure the letters of “Working Man" and “I?. \V, Dentith." They snow how public opinion is tending in the right direction. Personally I have not and never had the slightest confidence in any measure of social amelioration which does include that most fundamental of all reforms—the taxation of land values.—l am, etc., * P. J. O’E-EGAJsT. April 4th. TKAMWAY WORKERS. SOME INTERESTING COMPARISONS. (To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —In your article on the wages of tramway employees, in your issue of even date, you insinuate that the proposed increases would put Wellington tramway workers in advance of similar employees all the world over. You will pardon mo if I say we ought to look upon this fact, if it be a fact, as something in favour of tho proposed increases, and not, as you evidently mean it, an argument against further advances. But given tho increments asked for, would Wellington lead tho world as you assert?

Is it not a fact that when any public service is municipalised, the public take it as a foregone conclusion that considerable improvements will bo made in the conditions of the workers, and that these improvements will be progressive—that is keep in advance ot conditions granted to employees of similar services under private control. I ask you how does Wellington stand when examined by this Standard? Let us see. Taking your own figures, sir, in Monday’s issue of the "New Zealand Times," I find inotormen. and conductors receive, respectively, six shillings and tenpence and six shillings per week more than similar class of workers in the privately owned tramway system of Auckland, anil that the proposed increases wonld double these amounts. From this it would seem that Wellington tramway men have a considerable advantage in the matter ot wages over their fellows in Auckland. But what of the difference in the cost of living between the northern city and Wellington? I am told by those who have lived in Auckland that house-rent alone in Wellington more than swallows up tho seeming advantage. In the Old Country, in Glasgow, to be exact, we find the city tramway workers are paid from 50 per cent, to 70 per cent, per hour more than the employees of privately owned tramway system, even in towns where the cost of living is higher than in Glasgow. In Wellington the number of hours worked by the tramway employees is exactly tho same as those worked by the employees of the privately owned Auckland system—namely fifty-four hours per week.

Glasgow municipal tramway employees work from twenty-three to thirty-seven hours per week less than the privatelyowned London United!

Wellington municipal tramway workers have no superannuation scheme. In Glasgow all the municipal employees (in number equal to the population of Wellington) work fifty-four hours per week, and a committee of the Council has now under consideration a scheme for the introduction of a municipal eight hours day. That is not all. Glasgow tramway employees having fifteen years’ service, receive a pension of ten shillings per week for life, and after twenty-five years’ service .£1 per week for life. When talking about Wellington leading, remember,'sir, Glasgow’s aye handin’ forrit.— I am, etc., WAUN’EIN’ GLESCA KEELIE. April 7th.

NEW ZEALAND CADETS. A GENEROUS INVITATION. (To tho Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —I have received and load with groat interest and pleasure a copy of your issue of January 7th, containing an article on "Cadets and Marksmanship.” You allude, in your influential journal, to Colonel Loveday’s grand idea <f sending a full team of New Zealand Cadets Homo this summer. It will give mo groat pleasure to be responsible, on behalf of onr City schoolboys, whose guests they will be, for their welfare when over hero, and an influential hospitality committee is already being formed, one of the find members thereof being Captain Soltan Symons, of Eton College, well known throughont the Empire for the inter-school matches which ho instituted eevergj years ago, and possessing the Prince of Wales’s Cup for inter-school competition. As yon know, over here tho great mass of our fchoolhoys have hitherto had no cadet corps and no competitions, and it is tho object of tho Roberts Trophy to fill up this blank, so that all British boys the world over may he linked together on the common ground of marksmanship and pood fellowship. In Section 3 of the Roberts Trophy conditions, the word "British" is used in its political and Imperial connection, and "British parentage” includes all parents bona-fide residents of a British Dominion. Colony, or Dependency. In the section "King’s Condi-.

tior.s,” "any military position” is implied. Perhaps you will print a copy of tiie conditions, which I enclose, emphasising these points. I hope the New Zealand hoys will "pick up" some Australian cadets on their way Horae. They will have a good practical lesson in direction, distance, and ethnography, and will realise to some extent their splendid heritage, iho British Empire. If you cannot send a full team, Here will still be the Lady Gwendolen Trophy to fetch away by individual marksmanship, A*.

This year is the fiftieth anniversary of our beloved president’s V.C., won in tho Indian Mutiny in 1358. An account, all too modest, of this act occurs in his book "Forty-oue Years in India.” This book is a splendid record of a remarkable life, but every line of it makes one confident in tho future of our country, and makes one take great pride in our race, I am sending to Cadet McMahon a copy of this book, with Lord Bqberts's autograph, us a memento of his fine shoot in cmr Imperial Match, IEO7. Lastly, but not least, Mrs Hanson will ho pleased to "mother’’ your boys when fhoy come Home.—l am, etc., E. J. E. HANSON. London, Febiuary 24th. VERY UNKIND. (To* the Editor "N.Z. Times.’’) Sir, —There is, perhaps, nothing in the law of the laud to compel a ferry company having a monopoly from allowing a hundred or two w-et men, women ‘and children to wander disconsolately from Eoua Bay wharf to Day’s Bay wharf. There is likewise no reacou why a company should advertise thMt its steamer will call at Rona Bay and refuse to do anything of tho kind. There is, too. no compulsion on the part of a company on Saturday to notify that it doesn’t intend keeping to its advertised programme on Sunday, nor can it he advanced as a valid reason for refusal of a comp'my to take any notice of a largo number of passengers that a number of them were carrying ha hies‘and brown paper parcels. On tho whole it is rather humorous — for the company.—l Um, etc., INDIGNANT. Bona Bay, April 7th. A FARCE? (To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir,—The volunteers hate being wetnursed. They have gone into long trousers now and have given up their “dummies.” It is still understood by a trusting public that the forthcoming Das ior manoeuvres will bo as near to war a; is possible without bloodshed. Be it noticed that the Permanent Artillery will mobilise for war on Thursday, and that they will have tho hbrdest job of their service pretty soon. But be it also noted that on Tuesday next the Permanent Artillery under orders will proceed to the base of military operations at Jobnsonville or thereabouts in order to lay down camps Und tents, and what not, so that the volunteers (who are going on active service) shall .he nice and “comfy" as soon as they arrive. If there is anything more farcical in the Unnals of volunteering the facts shoe be given to the author of "The Private Secretary,” who would make another £500,000 out of it. The volunteers should not be treated like Babies, and the regulars shouldn’t bo trebled like servants. The volunteers do not desire to be "brought up by hand,” and the regulars will possibly try tram-conducting instead of soldiering if the system of making these stalwart young men flunkies on every possible occasion continues.—l am, etc., T, ATKINS. Johnsonville, April 7th.