CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 19292, 10 July 1924, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE

Lett*™ meet be written in ink ana <m mm •ide of the peper. Un lew a ■lgnature, not ■eceuartly for pabllcatlon. accompanies a letter aa a guarantee of good faith It will not be considered. An aateriak attached te the algnature to a published Kier denotes that some portion ha» been deleted by ths Kditor, a right which is exercised 1b questions of public policy, HboL good taste and fair play. CHURCH AND PROHIBITION. To the Editor. Sir,— When I read in the Southland Times of the 4th inst., your report of a discussion in the Dunedin Presbytery of a motion submitted by the convenor of the Temperance Committee (Rev. R. L. Walker), I said to myself, "an enemy hath done this.’’ The one who supplied you with the report was not, I venture to conjecture, a Prohibitionist. 1 have now to hand a copy of the Otago Daily Times, with a two-column report of the same discussion, and after reading this I find full justification for the impression formed in my mind on reading what you have published. I am humbly of opinion that your report does not reflect the usual fairness characteristic of the Southland Times. Let me refer to one or two points. From the Southland Times account it might seem as if the Dunedin Presbytery took this surprise attack on their well-known “dry” entrenchment “lying down.” The Otago Daily Times’ report corrects this view. For while the Southland Times reports the utterances of the few members who opposed the Temperance Committee’s report at great length and only these, the Otago Daily Times reports those of not a few on the other side, and many of these were not of the character of “milk and water.” I never remember plainer speaking in the Dunedin Presbytery. Then the Southland Times says, “The motion was carried”; the Otago Daily Times, "The motion was carried by a very large majority,” the Revs. Trotter, Maclean and Mr"Gow being the only supporters of the amendment. The moticn recommended the congregation within the bounds of the Presbytery, “by their example and influence to further the cause of total abstinence and national Prohibition.” The amendment was that the word “temperance” should take the place in the motion of “total abstinence and national Prohibition.” Further, a motion was passed, apparently unanimously, ‘‘that this Presbytery is in sympathy with the New Zealand Alliance in its aim to abolish the drink traffic.” The Southland Times is silent as to this—Rev. H. Maclean seconding the motion. Then again, compare the Southland Times with the Otago Daily Times in reporting a famous affirmation ascribed to Mr W. Gow—Southland Times:

"Mr W. Gow pointed out that there were only 15 members of the-Presbytery left. It seemed that the Prohibitionists wished to cram this thing down their throats.” Otago Daily Times: —“Mr W. Gow urged that seeing there were 15 members of Presbytery left, strong Prohibitionists, wishing to cram this thing down their throats, they should drop this part of the motion,” i.e., the part commending the Alliance to the financial support of the Church. Ask the Southland Times what it was that Mr Gow objected to have crammed down his throat, and the natural answer, it seems to me, would be Prohibition. Ask the Otago Daily Times the same question and the natural answer would be, “the appeal to the Church for financial support to the New Zealand Alliance. There is a big difference in the two interpretations of Mr Gow’s words. Not that I for one, would object very much if Mr Gow had said he objected to have Prohibition crammed down his throat. I know no other way to administer it.' When the wise and loving mother of long ago, before the days of sugared pills, found that her sick child refused to take the bitter draught, what did she do? Whipped up the child into her lap, caught it by the nose with one hand and with the other crammed the medicine down the child’s throat to the child’s profit. So may it be in the case of those who refuse the "desperate remedy.” I must apologise for asking you to publish so lengthy a letter; but as a member of the Dunedin Presbytery I am jealous of its honour and I conceive that if its attitude to the great Prohibition movement had been allowed without protest to be reflected as the report in the Southland Times reflected it, dishonour would have been done to it. In conclusion, I would freely acquit you of any fault in the matter. An Editor has only one pair of eyes and things are done that he is unaware of. I am, etc., I. K. McINTYRE. Otautau. July 7. FARMERS’ FINANCE. (To the Editor). Sir—One hardly knows how things are going to go during the next few months as there does not appear to be anything definite done in regard to finding money for mortgages, which will in all probability be called up during this year. I think that Mr Perrelle should be supported in his efforts to get finance for the farmers. It would be very encouraging to him now, and would carry some weight with it too, if the Farmers’ Union were to back him up in his endeavour to get sufficient State advances for the farmers to pay their loans with when they fall due. Mr Perrelle is a real sticker and it won’t be through any slackness on his part if the farmers find themselves at "wits’ end corner” next December, and I certainly think that his efforts should be appreciated and that he should be backed up by all hose who will benefit by his energy.—l am, etc.— FARMER. LAND VALUES. To the Editor. Sir, —The letter from Mr Neiderer in your issue of the 7th inst., calls for consideration on the attitude which this writer adopts in dealing with the question of land values. The position in regard to New Zealand is that: (a) Whereas the chief, in fact it might be stated the only, source of national income is the land, the population is increasing but very slowly in rural areas. On the other hand the urban population shows a big increase. The ratio twenty years ago was.as 60 to 40, the rural predominating; it is now 40 to 60 the urban predominating. (b) That owing to an increase in production cost the principal primary industry, i.e., butter-fat production, is largely unprofitable. (c) For a similar reason the production from newly developed country is unprofitable. I do not propose to state how <Q.any unoccupied holdings there are in Southland, it may be 200 or 20, but I am, at the present moment, overlooking three, the occupiers of which in 1922-23 were producing butterfat. Two of those occupiers are now on wages, the third will most likely have to adopt a similar course shortly. Very well; briefly, those problems were in the minds of Mr W. Stevenson and also of “Farmer,” when they put forward the idea of deflating land values. The writer does not agree either with Mr Stevenson or “Farmer” but at least those writers had ideas about the question and it was quite apparent had given the matter serious study. Now, neither letters by Mr Neiderer show that he has given any consideration to the matter. Mr Neiderer argues, “if you apply your remedy you will kill the patient. I don’t know how you will kill him, but you will, let us give him some rhyme and let him alone. He will recover, he has been ill before.” “Farmer Hodge,” too, put i forward a similar line of thought, only , that he added that not being ill himself, he , did not propose to trouble about anyone , else; however, he suggested a little grit j and independence. Nov/, the point I propose to put up to Mr Neiderer and to a , lesser extent both yourself, Mr Editor, and ] “Farmer Hodae” is that rhyme, ridicule f

and plain negation will cut no ice with any earnest citizen. The existence or seriousness of the problems put forward may be denied, but I imagine that the evidence is too strong for that. In connection with these matters it requires to be pointed out that what is termed modern civilisation is comparatively young, that there have been similar highly organised states of Society in the past history of the world and those conditions have disappeared, in Italy, Greece, Egypt, India, Asia Minor, Mexico, etc. There is no reason whatever for stating that our civilisation is necessarily permanent or .will be continually progressive. Assuming that the desire exists to develop our civilisation and to retain our present position as civilised beings, there is not the slightest doubt that something more is needed than the haphazard idea of letting things take their course. New Zealand, for instance, will not retain hex position as a primary producing country by propaganda and allowing the various economic factors to adjust themselves. I would point out to Mr Neiderer that the decline in agriculture in Great Britain and the U.S.A, is directly due to the inertia and lack of thought cm the part of the agriculturalists themselves. They have allowed the urban population to increase and share in the results of their industry and skill until the urban papulation takes out of the income derived from primary production considerably more than the primary producers themselves. If that position does not arise in New Ziealand it will be because, 1. The primary producers vaill take serious thought and action. 2. The geographical position coupled with the lack of low-paid labour will not allow New Zealand to become io any great extent an exporter of secondary products. It is a conjecture, but nevertheless, one that can be backed up by a wealth of reasons that the prime root cause of the dissipation of any highly organised state of society is the decline of agriculture, consequent upon a disproportionate increase of either leisured or other who were able to dispossess the agriculturalist of so much of his product as to lessen his efforts and numbers. The agriculturalist has never “subjected all others to his dictation,” he has become subjected iu the long run, and he has become so, because he has had no thoughts beyond “his pastures, stocks and crops.” He has been, ridiculed as a “clod-hopper,” and as a dass slow and narrow of thought, he has been epitomised in the famous painting ,4 The Man With The Hoe.” And if his ideas turn from his pigs and 'turnips with a view to improving his economic position, IBIr Neiderer comforts him with an assurance that “he is the mainstay of the nation;” And successful “Farmer Hodge” speaks of grit and independence. I assure ‘“Farmer Hodge” that the farmers who propose to improve their economic position and get the full measure of their production are showing more grit and independence than some of those of former days wha) have been content to share their produce l , with the “Jews.” And I would ask Mr bieiderer to extend a little more sympathy to those who are discussing seriously the problems of which there is no indication, in Iris letters, he has grasped. I am, etc., SUUM CUIQjUE.