THE GAME OF LIFE

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12251, 24 September 1925, Page 3

THE GAME OF LIFE

IS THERE A GOVERNING NATURAL PROCESS? INVESTIGATION REQUESTED DALZIELL PETITION AGAIN BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE The A to L Petitions Committee of the House of Representatives yesterday reconsidered the petition of Frederick George Dalziell praying that & Royal Commission or other tribunal be set up to sift what men in New Zealand really know about the constitution of life from what they merely believe about it.

The committee had considered the petition earlier in the month, and reported to the House that it should be leferred direct to the Government for consideration, as it was of opinion that the subject matter of the petition was outside the scope of investigation by a Parliamentary Committee. The House decided to refer the report back for further consideration.

The petitioner was represented by Mr H. Gray, K.C., and by Mr H. Johnston. In evidence he stated that the only way in which our living could be developed was by all those engaged in each occupation concentrating oa giving an ever-improving quality of service at a constantly reducing cost. The only known way by which that could be secured was by appointing experienced referees to see that the different occupations played the game with one another. This control by expert referees in the interests of efficiency was the only known means by which voluntary organisation could be governed successfully, and if the facts were investigated it would be found that all referees must be pledged to carry out the will of the supreme referee, as disclosed in the harmonies and frictions of enterprise. “PLAN LAID DOWN IN NATURE" “I know,” said Mr Dalziell, “how foolish the suggestion must seem to yon that this is all that can be done to set the world right, namely, that those in each occupation should concentrate their minds on improving the quality and reducing the cdst of their service, which is to be brought about by the appointment of referees with power to see that all services follow this course; but investigate the matter and you will see that this is the plan laid down in Nature, and that it applies equally to national and international relations. It is the great game of life we children of God are engaged in. I suggest to you that if there is even the remotest possibility that a governing natural process of such supreme importance can be established as a fact of experience, it is worthy of your consideration.”

Mr Dalziell said that his difficulty was that the great philosophers and scientists of the world had not seen the process he was outlining, so that he was'up against the beliefs of the world’s rfjrett men. COD THE SUPREME REFEREE The chairman of the Committee (Mr R. A. Wright) asked Mr Dalziell who was tho supreme referee. Mr Dalziell replied that He was God. Mr J. C. Rolleston: “What about our present Arbitration Court? Is that not a referee?” .Mr Dalziell: That is not an expert referee. There mnst be an expert referee—a. leader with a knowledge of all the circumstances.

Mr Wright: How are you going to get him ? Mr Dalziell: You have- got him. People were only getting their living to-day in proportion as they were following the procedure he desired should be. investigated, he added. There Was in the Gospel recor-’ he said, a description of Nature that no scientist had ever yet disturbed. His difficulty was that the public did not know what he was talking atrout any more than the public at the time, of Jesus knew what He was talking about. The people had been led away from the fact that Jesus taught this natural process. Jesus taught the process by which Nature was governed, and that was His message. People thought Jesus merely came to tell us to be good. In the Gospel record they found a, definite statement that life.' - MEANING OF THE GOSPEL Mr Wright: What 'do you say there is in the Gospel record about'it? “The definite statement that all things have life. You find it in this statement, ‘Say to this mountain, ‘Remove vourself into the sea.” ’ If you have the faith of a mustard seed you can say to the mountain, ‘Remove yourself into .the sea,* and it will he moved. A'mustard seed can say to a stone‘Remove'yourself,’ and it will move. When 1 realised that that was what it meant in literal terms I remembered that I had seen 6tones move out of the way or mushrooms and plants.” Mr Wright: Do you say that that is what the Gospel means? Mr Dalziell: That is what the words meaD. They are now finding out the ntoms of stones. They are now finding out that the atoms have been

rock. These are the questions that lie hidden in the Gospel record. Tlie human body is made up of atoms. Mr Dalziell replied that it was known that the body had been rock atoms. Mr Wright said that it was the individual’s faith that was referred to in connsetiou with the mustard seed and the removal of mountains.

Mr Dalziell: No, it says it will remove, apd it will remove. That power is consistent with evervthing science knows. These principles, he added, could be learned if people stripped themselves of pre-conceived ideas. WOULD THE PEOPLE SUBMIT? Mr Wright asked what would happen if the people would not do as the referees Mr Dalziell spoke of wished them to do. Supposing they went on strike ? Mr Dalziell: You will do as you do in football. You will send them off the field. You have to recognise that this is something which has to he recognised whether you believe it or not? Mr Wright: The difficulty I see about it is that the people won’t be controlled like that. Do you propose to start to educate the children? Mr Dalziell: No, the old people first. , Mr F. N. Bartramt As soon as they get the knowledge they die. so what’! the good of teaching them? In reply to Mr J. W. Munro, Mi Dalziell said there was no law of est—there was the practice of interest. Interest disappeared as industry was made secure. PETITION SUPPORTED Professor T. A. Hunter supported the petitioner’s claim that a tribuna 1 should be set up to investigate the matter. He said that as he -understood it, Mr Dalziell’s claim was that things did happen in the world according to a definite scheme. If they fitted in with that scheme they got what was called success. If they did not fit in they got what was non-success, and ultimate disaster. On the basis of bis own experience he personally would support Mr Dalziell’s claim.

In reply to Mr Wright t Professor Hunter said that he took, it that the business of the investigating tribunal would be to bring forward all sorts of people to state whether they had made a success of their business by neglecting Mr Dalziell’s principle. If so, slr Dalziell’s claim was gone. On the other hand, if it could be shown that a- great deal of the suffering in the world arose from the fact that we were running counter to these principles, then he took it that the inquiry would be of an educative value. The idea would he in the minds of the people that they were living under a definite scheme. The inquiry would definitely decide the issue by the actual experience of men engaged in the occupations of life. Professor von Zedlitz said he felt it , Was their duty to give Mr Dalziell a helping hand to have a further examination made, which chiefly would be of educative value. It would help to 6how people that they had to keep in spiritual health just as much as they must keep in bodily health if they were to achieve the practical ends of their life. Incidentally the benefit to the whole community was something that might be incalculable in the future. The whole notion of industrial strife at once disappeared over the horizon if they had that outlook. Mr Wright: Do you think it is possible to get this state of co-operation in tho world? Professor von Zedlitz replied that it was done more often than not. Some people were achieving a measure of success, and some a great measure of success.

“AN INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL"

Before the proceedings concluded there was some discussion as to what form the investigating tribunal should take. Mr Dalziell said, in reply to Mr A. Harris, that he did not believe in investigation by a committee of,scientists, as they would say they did not believe in him. There-must be an independent- tribunal, such as a judge, who could cross-examine. He suggestec that the leaders of the different occupations and professions should he called to give evidence of tlieir experience. Such a tribunal was the only way he had of trying to get the principle he was stating into the public mind. Sir John Luke thanked the committee for hearing Mr Dalziell, and said he trusted that tlie matters would be fully investigated, for the benefit of mankind.