Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 19, 13 April 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say —

To the Editor. OPTICIANS, TOO I have been very interested in the correspondence on "Chemists and Prescriptions" in THE SUN. I heartily endorse, what has been said. Why should a chemist retain a prescription which is, by right of purchase, the customer's? And why, too, should an optician keep the “formula” handed to him by an eye specialist’s patient? I had to have spectacles made in Dunedin some years ago. The optician kept the memo I handed him and now that I have had the misfortune to break my glasses I have had to telegraph to Dunedin for a new pair. And my candid opinion of this pernicious practice would not be printed bv THE SUN. HALF-BLIND. COMMERCIAL MORALITY Sir, — Mr. Morris, official asignee, is to be commended for his courageous outspokeness when he declared that business morality in Auckland was at a low ebb. He is not alone in this view. There is little honesty in business transactions, and the immorality is widespread to the degradation of a fair city. Not only is it rampant in commercial circles, but other professions are not free from its insidious workings. The popular doctrine in this fair city would appear to be the doctrine of caveat emptor. let the buyer beware! ’Tis a pity it is so, and the unfortunate part of the whole sad business is that this pernicious doctrine with its attendant villainy, is being imbibed by the younger generation. A day of reckoning must and will come. HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT Sir, In your issue of the 2nd inst.. in answer to “Brith,” you reply: “We can find no mention of the Supreme Being in the League of Nations covenant.” You are correct, yet many of the Christian churches whole-heartedly support this man-made scheme for preventing' war. What about the ideal League of Nations—the Anglo-Saxon Englishspeaking nations—Britain and her company of nations —knit together by strong yet invisible ties, and since the last Imperial Conference closer knit than ever? How many of those who support the League of Nations have made themselves familiar with the covenant thereof? Lord Curzon says, with regard t,o these covenants, that “Not even a trained lawyer could attach a clear meaning to many of their phrases.” The Duke of Northumberland points out that under Article X. of the covenant; we bind ourselves to interfere in every quarrel, whether it concerns us or not. Therefore, he continues: “The League is simply a sham alliance of Powers based on so-called moral precepts, which will involve us in Avar without giving any promise of support or affording effective means of going to war. The more we consider the League of Nations, the more clear does it seem that ‘some enemy hath done this.’ ” Surely it is obvious to common sense that there is nothing but danger to the British Empire in a scheme which shifts the control of a large part of our affairs from London to Geneva, from British hands into those of an assembly mainly composed of foreigners. In fact it shifts the capital of the British Empire from the banks of the Thames to the Lake of Geneva. May I conclude with the words of Bishop Frodsham: “The League of Nations is a glorious dream, but the British Empire is a solid reality.” BRITISH.

EVOLUTION NOW Sir, — Again I have to remind “A.E.C.” that I prefer to use my own methods of controversy. He is at liberty, of course, to quote his supporters. Having failed to reply to my letter showing the futility of appealing to comparative anatomy, embryology, and palaeontology, because, in every case they prove the unity of design, he excuses himself, weakly, I consider, by saying he cannot publish his name; and, that I may learn his name from the editorial department. At present I will not inquire. “A.E.C.” should have thought of his position before rushing into print. Does “A.E.C.” believe in the coming of new species simply because he sees resemblances of structure? Surely he can see these wonderful resemblances in the various forms of life. It cannot be shown that a. distinct species has evolved from other species. Surely he must be confusing species with varieties. “A.E.C.” now being driven into a corner makes the somewhat astounding statement that species have been built up by “deliberate manufacture.” This is idle talk on his part; he is arguing in a vicious circle. No new species have been “built up” by biologists or anyone else. I hope, sir, “A.E.C.” is not becoming obsessed by the revolutionary myth. Perhaps your correspondent is thinking about artificial selection. It has done much for the world in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. They have produced many varieties of existing species, but the production of another species, never. All attempts at crossing species have signally failed or produced hybridism. After thousands of years of human attention to animals have passed, no new species have appeared. The unity of design and structural resemblances seem to resist confusion; and the vast number of species with their variations all go to show that evolution is not the solution of this problem. Other well-known sources of information fully solve this great question. REUBEN E. DOWLE. REVOLVING ROUND A QUESTION Sir. Mr. Fraser’s reply is characteristic. He circles rouncl the essential points of the argument dealing with foreign trade. He does not reply to pointed questions, but repeats assertions which imply that trade is not an “exchange” of goods, etc., as propounded by economists of all shades of opinion. He moves in an ellipse circumscribed by his own prejudices; in an excentric orbit which never touches the realities of international trade. Ignoring my argument that “for every £1 of imports into the Empire £1 of exports must go out,” he harps on countries that refuse to “permit anything in the nature of reciprocal trade.” and dwells >n foreign goods being “dumped” into the Empire. I contend that the "dumping in” is equalled by the “dumping out” and I rest this on the fact that trade is barter. Mr. Fraser is careful to avoid committing himself as to whether he would have the Empire 100 per cent, self-contained, or 50 per cent, or 25 per cent.; he sees danger ahead. Neither does he tell your readers whether he would refuse to buy “foreign” invention designed to cut down the cost of industrial power. He talks but does not debate. As to whether I am a supporter of foreign goods in preference to Empire goods, my position is quite clear. I would buy in the cheapest market. If foreign goods, equal in quality and suitableness, were lower in price I would take them, not to benefit the “foreigner,” although he may have saved us from

losing the war. but to benejltM» Zealand. Supposing a British moto. truck would cost us 100 boxes of butter as against an American, s ' ml ! a f, 0 t _ n i;. at 50 boxes. I would buy the latter f • the very good reason that such apo ■ would make this Dominion wealtM ; The man who would buy the Brm® article in such circumstances wool like the builder who bluntened his tools when he erect a house. We should P r ®c „ requirements with the minim® amount of labour; that j- [ economics and practical, wis have many more questions J * i; like to ask Mr. Fraser but xuU until he answers those I . h , 2'2 thiput. With regard to British tradft has declined since the ' vai A h n for eis:. cause she has been flooded colffl . goods, hut because many fore g tries have been rendered too import goods, i.e., they hat few goods to “dump. C.H.SSMALL BABIES The following is a c°PV of a “ which appeared in “Person s 1 on September 25 1915: baB |ES WORLD’S SMALLEST Boy With a Head the Site of Horse-chestnut The tiny Flemish baby to““ d f a 1 and kicking by our trooP _ partially destroyed farm bui -jug which weighed, we pre jiy an! F under two pounds. is n fbuma® 1 * £ means the smallest edition of on , on record. A child , qbelch of the meetings of the British a „d a I rical Society weighed just on . Med ica quarter pounds, and the * th <,[ a j Times” once announced the o oC , living baby that weighed | pound. Even this I ever, was beaten as regftrds , , . an de I by the son of D. C. Mil of an d“ >bo 1 laria, born October 27, I weighed only eight and a entirel: . I ounces. A five-shilling P e ® *»( f hid its little face, and its mo ]e#i too small to admit an ordinary | pencil. , to Another tiny baby boy King*' and Mrs. Charles Tracy, 0 bridge, turned the scale at w borS eIts head was no bigger than » chestnut. The mouthcoui heT s grasp a goose-quill, while to® up >' : wedding ring would slip legs and thighs. . „ oe 1 The child of Mr. Mario" pi 1 by the way. lived to grow m“ yf t healthy man, measuring. va a » l I father, over six feet in height, » ! birth, “no bigger than ” ex® 1 !? , doll." Its head was N* 1 the size of an ordinary at l and the mothers ring woum_ Che arm as high as the shou 1 IVAN A- 6*4*s** I