LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15063, 9 February 1911, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

PORT CHALMERS IMPROVEMENTS. Sin,—ln your issue of Thursday last " Observer" says that the fact of so much remaining undone in the Borough of Port Chalmers docs not detract from what is being _ done. I say that a large amount of what is being done is absolutely useless, and in time will take more of tho ratepayers' money for upkeep than will compensate them for the amount spent. It is absurd (o mate the streets into botanical gardens, and I heartily endorse the remarks of "No Humbug" about the seats around the rotunda. How many women use these seats? No working man has time to loaf about these seats. I consider the money spent on these botanical gardens and scats would be more profitably spent if used' in, oloantsing the town of rats, which abound in it. "Observer" goes on to tell us about councillors being personally and politically opposed to tho Mayor. He says that his Worship's unforgiveablo sin is that he wishes to sec tho district represented on the Harbour Boaixl and in Parliament by local residents in preference to outsiders. It looks as if tho Mayor wanted to represent tho whole district himself. He did himself no good over his recent actions in connection with the Harbour Board representation, and his uncalled for method of attacking the member for tli© district, Mr E. H. Clark, won Mm no friends. I was pleoscd to see his motion to release tho borough from its liability to tho Harbour Board was defeated at the board's meeting yesterday, and 1 heartily support Mr Loudon and the chairman in their remarks. There is ono thing I would like to put on record, and that is with regard to Port Chalmers being represented in Parliament by an outsider, as your correspondent calls it. Mr Clark has shown by his untiring energy and attention to his district's requirements that, though ho lives at the north end, he has done more for Port Chalmers and the surrounding district than any previous member did, and any assertion that through not living in Port he has not been able to look after- its interests is contrary to fact, I havo no desire to hurt Mr Plate's feelings, but he can take it from me that if ho stands at the general election in November next he will 'bo told by a very substantial majority that Chalmers is satisfied with its member and that there are too many lawyers already in tho House.— I am, etc., Ratepateb.

Goodwood, January 27.

UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS,

Sin—l confess it is difficult for mo to find out exactly What you do believe on this question. I gathor, however, from your article to-day that you are neither against nor for the present system. Apparently it is a matter to bo discussed in a purely theoretical maimer. The view held by educationists tho world over is that it is of vital importance, and requires immediate attention. You and they differ. In your first article of January 30 you thought tot "the Chancellor's comments appeared well-directed and effective.". Today you desert the Chancellor, for the Chancellor directed his argument to tho principle that tho teachers of students should not be their examiners for degrees, and it appears I was ingenuous in thinking that, as you considered the Chancellor's comment effective on January 30, it would still appear so to you a week later. No doubt 1 was. , You adduce arguments that might be used to support tho present system. It is true you do not stress them :— (1) '" Tho doubtful superiority of tho substitute." The Reform Association merely asks for an inquiry. At such inquiries it U customary for the commissioners to have all the evidence before them, and tlien to advise- what reforms they consider necessary, 'and how these may best be oarried cut. Wo have suggested examining boards. As you do not believe tho present method sound, can you suggest a better remedy? (2) "The risk of detrimentally affecting the standard of the New Zealand degrees." This standard' is purely local. Sir William Ramsay's opinion on this point will be published in a few days. To raise the standard of degrees you must raise the standing of the professors and students.

(3) "A. possible loss in the matter of strict impartiality." This means that there is some danger of collusion among the four professors of an examining board to defeat tho ends of justice. Obviously, if this is .so, you must get further back and dismiss some of your professors. If vou believe the' danger to be real, do you think it fair that such professors should be allowed to fail students for terms. As in medicine the teachers take part in the examination of their students for devices, are v?e to understand that, as a class, the medical professors are the only ones immune from this taint?

(4) " The opinions of many professors and educationists in Now Zealand whiohi are entitled to respect." The main argument adduced against cliango is tho timolionoured one that you appear to stress, that tho time has not yet come. Reforms arc fairly close when this is the case. ' Can, you tell us tho names of those wlio support tho present system? Can you give us the arguments that they adduce? In'present circumstances it is rather difficult to estimate the value of this opinion, but tho opinions from a-broad, including those of heads of universities—e.g., President Eliot, of Harvard,—graduates .of New Zealand University holding educational posts abroad —ag., President R, C. Maclaurin, of Boston ; Professor Inglis, of Reading,—English examiners for the New Zealand University — e.g., Sir William Ramsay, Professors Por.nti.ng, Tout—and the commissions on t.ha Scottish, London, Melbourne, and othor

universities aire practically unanimous in condemning a system in which tho profes-

sors are excluded from taking part in the examination of their students for degrees. —I am, etc., Tnos. A. Htjnteb. February 7. JTbaro is no inconsistency between tho views expressed by us on January 30 a,nd those oxpressed on February 7.—Ed.

O.D.T.]

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA. Sm,—Your correspondent " Moderate " writes that ho is surprised that the Noliccnso party appeals to America, to support its case, in favour of no-license. He then goes on to cito the number of murders that occur in America. First, we do not desire to appeal to America., Wo are quite content to rest our appeal to New Zealand voters on our New Zealand examples as regards no-liconso and on the common sense of the pc-oplo as regards Dominion prohibition. Second, wo must answer unmerited slanders on the prohibition States in America.

In quoting the murders for all America your corresjwndent is descending to unworthy tactics. How does it condemn nolieciiM that enormous numbers of murders arc daily comitted in tho krgo cities and other licensed and lawless places in America? In order to condemn no-license il must bo proved that murder is more prevalent in no-licenso areas than in license places. As a matter of fact, Kansas—a typical prohibition area a.nd once a very lawless place—is far ahead of New Zealand with regard to tho fewness of hear prisoners, tho small amount of pauperism, of inebriates, and of pauper children and tho number of persons in poorhouses. On all these tests New Zealand Js far outclassed. Why? It is notorious that in America they are less law-abiding than in New Zealand. Wliy, then, are there fewer prisoners, etc.? The answer lies in ono word— prohibition ! " Moderate ", quotes a certain Episcopal bishop in Oklahoma as being against prohibition. I daresay that when the Rov, W. Thomson was fulminating asrainst no-liconso in Uunedin ho was quoted in America. Ho did nc*, however, influence public opinion here, for very good reasons. Tho rjeoplo of Oklahoma condemned tho Rev.'F K. Brooko and upheld prohibition at Kbo late election by a majority of 50. COO. It is simply showing an impudent disregard of facts to go on crying -out "Pioliibitioa in Okklroma, is. a

failure" whon a 30,000 majority of the people say it is a success and want it kept oh.—l am, etc., Secretary No-license Parts.

WANTED: A TRUER POLITICAL ECONOMY. Sir,—All classes fell, like sheep, into tho rap set by Malthus, John Stuart Mill,

Ricardo, and others, who tried to outwit , the bountiful provision of the Creator by teaching that as the population of tho United Kingdom was increasing faster than tho means of subsistence, matters must bo adjusted by repeatedly decimating tho population by famine, war, pestilence, or some other ecourgo—truly a "dismal eoience." This evolved the destruction of cli/Jd life. About 90 years ago—when the population of the United Kingdom was about one-half of what it is now—Malthus was not a true prophet when he said that in 100 years the Kingdom would bo overrun by human beings, liko rabbits upon im island, dying of starvation or some othor scourge, until brought bad; again within the measure of subsistence. But rabbits were consumers only, while man, by commercial, industrial, and agricultural pursuits, was both a producer and consumer, and his means of subsistence wero bounded only by the tremendous productive capacity ol the whole world. And what of science making two, or even more, blades of grass grow where only ono grew beforo? In their day Malthus and Mill should have known that the wealth per inhabitant—in other words, the means of subsistence—was greater than it was 50 years beforo. It .is immeasurably greater now, and that tiho United Kingdom can carry twico /or oven thrioo the population it- does now emphatically refutes the idiosyncracies of our political economists. My point is that wealth, the means of subsistence, increases faster than population. In other words, a sturdy |incrcasing population means an infinitely greater increase in wealth production: look at America. When New Zealand, too, had half tho population, tho wealth per inhabitant was much less than it is now. It might be better distributed, but this is a knotty point, and for tho present beside tho question. It is, then, economically sound, in every way, to increase tho population; but tho soulless doctrines of our political economists in ruthlessly advocating the destruction of child life would from every point of view relatively impoverish the British race. Coincidently, in New Zealand, is the trouble to get youthful labour. Then, tlie great majority of our industries fail to keep pace with the increase of population. I want to fire the reasoning powers of everybody with tho fact that this relatively decreased the volume of local products and therefore decreased tho fund out of which wages, profits, and everything else were paid. This, too, produced intermittent employment and heaped up money in tho ba.nks, which might as well be at the bottom of the sea. The competition of importations was partly to blame, but the root cause was the inoessant warfare against employers, who would sooner import everything > they could than run any_ further ■risk in developing their industries. To combat this with a higher Customs tariff would produce a further demand for higher wages. This would increase the cost of local products to consumers and again invite foreign competition, so that tho last state of things would be worse than the first.

Now, would tilings improve if the State didthemanufaoturing? I pay more for firo insurance now than before the. State Department started. Coal, too, is no cheaper. Nor is life insurance. And that the State recently dismissed some 60 ecal miners shows that out so-called Socialistic departments, like private concerns, are governed by the inexorable law of supply and demand, and have not solved the unemployment riddle, though they were expeoted to do so. State workers, too, force up their wages or salaries by strikes or otherwise just as other workers with private employers do, amd are paid no higher, while in some cases the 'hours of labour are longer. In fact, our State departments are merely larger companies competing with private companies or employers for whatever business is Going. The post office ami railways are in a sense monopolies like the gigantic trusts in America, but in each case wages or salaries are paid acco r !i>-;r to merit, and each must pay its way, ':o amy other business, out of the people's pockets. This is individualism, and not Socialism. Socialism means nationalising everything and paying everybody alike. If not, and the State is to take'over everything, and we are still to- bo paid according to merit or ability, where is the difference between this and what exists now. The difference is, there would be one employer, the State—that is, ourslves; and in the absence of healthy competition or incentives to individual enterprise it is natural to suppose we would make things as soft and as rosy as possible, and so produce a mental, moral, and physical inertia that would enormously reduce the production of wealth, and so cripple the fund out of . which wages or salaries were paid that even our so-called Socialists would cry out for a return to the old order of things just as they did in New Australia and other places. That the cost of living has increased is contradicted by the fact that almost everything is cheaper now than it was 25 years ago. The real trouble is an insatiablo desire for pleasure and luxury. TherP everybody who works mentally or physically is a "worker." Moreover, hosts of thrifty, industrious working men who have money invested in the Pest Office Savings Bank for profit or interest are capitalists, just as imioh, as the man who has his in a business. In the first place the profit is certain ; in the latter it is uncertain, being subject to vigorous competition. Then our " buoyant revenue" is no criterion of individual prosperity, _ but may be due to an increaso in population, increased taxation, increased railway fares, and increased importations consequent upon the comparative decrease in local productions—which is actually the case. Finally, we want industrial rest. It does not mean stagnation, but a restoration of confidence between capital and labour, and every incentive given to self-effort and individual enterprise, which at present is as dead as a door nail. For nobody but a fool would start a new business or industry, not knowing •what was coming next. And if we wish to avoid the terrible fate of ancient Greece and Rome wo must vigorously promote the sanctity of the marriage rite, and immediately stop the unholy destruction of child life, and thus make for a nobler economics.—l am, etc., Joseph Bkaithwaite.