Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19270, 6 September 1924, Page 8

The familiar question of the “shyness” of Dunedin in the matter of self-assertion cropped up in the coarse of an interview between the Prime Minister and a deputation from the Dunedin Returned Soldiers’ Association on Thursday. Perhaps Mr Massey had some -warrant for asking why the complaints advanced by the deputation had not been submitted to him .when he was; in Dunedin ; and the reply—“.that is because of the natural shyness of the Dunedin people”—is not wholly satisfactory, especially as the timidity did not preclude the enterprise of a special visit to Wellington. Waiving this point, however, we recognise that the representations of the local R.S.A. are not negligible. It is alleged that the working ol the system of loans to returned soldiers for housing and settlement. purposes ha» tended to the undue advantage of country residents in comparison with' those in the towns. It is also said that Dunedin has not had its fair share of such money as has been available for the urban districts* '‘Because,” declares Mr Massey, echoing, a remark already quoted, "Dunedin has not asked.” In regard to this matter, and perhaps not this alone, Dunedin must learn its lesson, and (even at the sacrifice of its innate diffidence) cultivate the habit of ashing, and, if necessary, asking for more. The Prime Minister does not seem to'have been in his most amiable mood. He is troubled by demands from all quarters for financial assistance, —"having a terrible time of it,” he says ruefully,—so that he is beginning to wonder whether the disadvantages of possessing a surplus do not outweigh the advantages. His advice to the deputation was, since the system of special loans to returned soldiers has been discontinued, that tha soldiers should apply to the Advances to Settlers Department; but, even if this suggestion can be regarded as otherwise reasonable, the present congestion of business in that department involves inconvenient and trying delays.

In the course of the interview between the Prime Minister and the deputation from the Dunedin Branch of the Returned Soldiers’ Association attention was drawn to a particular phase of the subject under discussion which seems to be of considerable importance. It is said l —indeed, there seems to be good reason to believe—that some returned soldiers, to whom special loans for house-building purposes wore granted, have sold their new homes at a considerable profit, in most casta to, purchasers who did. not serve in the war. The word “profiteering,” which h*a

ugly associations, has been used in relation to these reported transactions; buc tt is sufficient to say that they pertain to a kind of speculative enterprise to v/hich it -was certainly not intended to lend encouragement when the scheme of advances to soldiers was inaugurated. The idea was to help returned soldiers to establish permanent homes, not to furnish them with facilities for engaging in money-making adventures by means of the liberality of the State. On first thought it might seem strange that no provision was made against the possibility of this kind of speculation; but it might not be very easy to frame prohibitive rules of an effective character. While it would be unreasonable and unjust to hedge the grants to returned soldiers with restrictions that would unduly limit their freedom of action, it must ho recognised that any wide development of the practice of transferring, bouses built with State aid, granted with a specific home-making object in view, would invite the comment that the policy of Stateassistance had been abused.

Valedictory compliments addressed to the National Council of Women should certainly include a recognition of the celerity with which the delegates overtook a formidable amount of deliberative business. It would be a tedious task to recapitulate the multifarious subjects comprised in an agenda paper at which conferences limited to masculine representation might well stand aghast; hut the obligation of the long list was not shirked. On the contrary, it was bravely tackled; and, though there was much talk, the reports of the meetings do not indicate that there was any superfluous verbiage. We have heard of a citizen, of the sterner persuasion, who, turning over the pages of the newspapers, plaintively (not to say querulously) exclaimed, “Why, there’s nothing in it except this Women’s Council stuff!’’—and a little later, in a tone of half-reluctant admiration, “How on earth do they manage to get through it all in the course of a day?’’ Well, perhaps the happy despatch of the Council’s work may convey a not wholly unnecessary lesson to masculinity in conference. In these days the women who attend councils have no time to waste. They are busy with domestic concerns as well as with the large problems of the nation and the world. Husbands and children, or other trying people, await their return home, not always with the patience which they; themselves have been tutored to exercise. For this and other reasons they learn vo give practical illustration to the motto of “multum in parvo” and to settle most mundane troubles with a superb ciurage and an effective rapidity which, at the phrase goes, leaves nothing to be desired. Dunedin should preserve none but wholesome and stimulating memories of the sixth assembly of the National Council of Women.

There is a substantial measure of justification for the indictment of many of the American picture films shown in the dominion which was framed by the mover of a remit adopted by the conference of the National Council of Women this week. It is unfortunate that the public taste in respect of moving pictures does not demand a higher standard, but is content with a preponderance of fare that pays so scant a tribute to the intelligence. Fault cannot be found with the affirmation of a Wellington delegate that hundreds of thousands of-.pounds are sent annually ,to America, the only return towhich is “sensational rubbish.’’ The response of the public to the appeal of the meretricious aspects of the moving picture stage, is a manifestation which it is useless to denounce, though deplored it ' may be. It is true enough, no doubt, that the public gets what: it wants, — that is to say, the taste of the majority is catered for. Since the rpajority is not the discriminating section of the community, it is not to be wondered at that melodrama, projecting views of what purports to be life, in keeping with the hectic revelations of sensational fiction, should hold a conspicuous place upon the cinema stage. The genius of the American film producers for playing upon and fostering an appetite for a class of fare which they turn out in prodigious quantity may be admitted. Their methods of securing adequate publicity are not less remarkably specialised. It is justly argued that parents generally exercise too little discrimination in regard to the kind of pictures which their children are permitted to see. The National Council of Women has offered a word of seasonable advice to parents on another aspect of the child’s upbringing—namely, in respect of encouragement given young children to appear on the platform or stage. If some parents are not capable ’of a sensible opinion of their own on this matter they should at least bo capable of appreciating the medical testimony and tho argument concerning the child’s nervous system.