LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22825, 9 March 1936, Page 11

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

FIRE-WALKING IN FIJI TO THE EDITOR SIR, —I read Mr John Watson's letter, in which he described the Fijians' firewalking as a bit of a fake. I am to a large extent in agreement with him. I saw the Fijians giving their fire-walk-ing "stunt" at the Christcliurch Exhibition in December, 1906. The stones were brought from Fiji. It would be interesting at this date to know what became of them. They were much water-worn, and, to my idea, were of a light reddish-brown colour. Some little time after the show was over, I went to the furnace to look at some of the stonea that were pulled out of the fire, for inspection. They would instantly light a match, if it were gently placed against them. But I found that I could pat the stones with the palm of my hands without discomfort. Then the human races that always walk barefooted, develop a hard and horny foot, sometimes like a hoof, as H. M. Stanley found at the head of the Congo. These then would be a most excellent non-conductor of heat. It seems curious to me that the eminent men who looked with much amazement on firewalking, and studied it from many different points of view, never thought of this.—l am, etc., .Richard Norman. Lawrence, March 0. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS UNION TO THE EDITOR Sir, —When I saw in your issue of February 29 the president's appeal for more members, it appeared to me that the League of Nations Union considers the international crisis is all over, as the past tense is used, whereas our responsible Imperial statesmen are quite of the reverse opinion.

The appeal said that the League of Nations is the only force that can ensure permanent security, which, we are to understand, means peace in the world. It could not ensure permanent security for one of its members—to wit, Abyssinia. Such a setatement, however, is an absolute contradiction of the Scriptures. Therein we read continually that no peace will pertain on earth until wickedness is removed, and this will only happen when the Messiah comes again. God gave man a free hand in his own government, giving him also a code of laws to follow for his good, but man has gone the other way very largely, and has failed utterly to live in peace and amity with his fellows. The only hope of peace and goodwill among the nations is when the Almighty tako« up the earthly rule to straighten out man's hopeless muddle, and commences the golden age. If the union ever considers the Bible and translates it to infer, as some do, that this present Christian era is still in its infancy, its members may go black in the face in their fruitless endeavours to bring peace in the world. On the other hand, they may agree with the other nchool of .translation which interprets from the many given signs in the Testaments that the Messiah's return is now very near, in which case they must expect the world to be shortly in the throes of war —the most awful war yet—which He comes to end.

The Bible is to be believed rather (ban the union. It is a tremendous- pity that this body of worthy men does not look at the portrait of the League of Nations, so clearly portrayed in the mirror of the Bible, for this would show that we cannot safely place all our trust in men and in confederations for continued national life and security. This is only obtainable by obedience to and faith in God.

Tlie union's best day's work would be to request that our eyes might be opened to behold the wondrous things foretold in God's Book. (This is equally good advice for tlie No-more-warriors, and for us all, as there is always further information to be unveiled.) I must point out that, had it not been for the unprecedented and phenomenal action of the commoners of Britain sending vanloads of letters of protest to their members of Parliament, the Hoare-Laval proposal would have gone forward to the League of Nations and would undoubtedly have been approved by that body as the easy way of concluding the war and vindicating its existence. Only Abyssinia would have protested, and she would have been ostracised if she had not meekly accepted the terms. The League of Nations cannot have any credit for the turning down of this proposal; it was the sense of injustice to be proposed at the League of Nations that aroused England against being a party to such infamy that caused its withdrawal.—! am. etc., G. STEEt. March 5.

Other Letters to the Editor appear on page 1 4.