Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 84, 30 June 1927, Page 8

Citizens Say —

THE PURDY FIGHT Sir, — In regard to the “Referee” critic’s article on the Purdy v. Fairhall fight in Australia, I have always been convinced that Purdy is far too good a boxer to be used as a chopping block for professional fighters. Not that up to now he has not been able to take care of himself! In my opinion he made a mistake in entering the ranks as a professional. He would be better engaged in teaching the noble art of self-defence. I, of course, refers to the younger generation as amateurs. Purdy is a born boxer; a good-looking, likeable boy, and an accomplished artist. There are sometimes two distinct types, boxers and fighters. Purdy belongs to the former. However, amateur boxers do not get paid and professionals do, hence Purdy’s move into the “pro.” ranks. If Purdy were brought back here and paid fees on a percentage basis, according to results obtained as an instructor, it might be an inducement for him to remain. It would certainly be of tremendous benefit to the youth and, incidentally, the future manhood of New Zealand. A LOVER OF THE NOBLE ART OF SELF-DEFENCE. “SLAVERY” Sir, — Re “Confectioner’s” letter in your paper, dated June 25. He states that the Government is going to ruin 90 per cent, of the confectioners by reducing their hours. The Government is making a very wise move when it limits the hours one should work. ‘Confectioner” should not grieve about this. The intended restriction of hours, to my mind, is the best thing that could be done for confectioners, as a man working both day and night is a menace to himself and all concerned and has very little respect for his health. In the long run these are the ones who will fall back on the State in a ruined condition brought on by their own doings. I also wish to state that I have been in the confectionery business myself for the last ten years, and I have worked the same hours as mentioned by “Confectioner,” and have come to the conclusion that the sooner the Government passes the Act the better, and thus save doctors’ bills, which long hours must ultimately end in. I would like to explain to “Confectioner” that it would be better for him to give up business than to have to work 17 hours a day for the bare three meals a day. The Government should have prohibited this slavery long ago. C. G. MORRIS. Hamilton. RICHARD SEDDON’S DOCTRINE Sir, — It is gratifying to read your editorial regarding Parliament becoming involved in an unnecessary debate concerning the rate of wages being paid on unemployment relief works. Existing conditions throughout the Dominion are certainly far from buoyant, and unfortunately the Government is inclined to side-step responsibilities by throwing the burden on to the shoulders of local bodies. _lt is manifest the solution of present difficulties we are faced with is a national question and the Government is in duty bound called upon to deal with our vital problems in a decidedly more convincing manner than one has observed since increasing unemployment first darkened the doorstep of this Dominion. I refer the Prime Minister to the following words of that great statesman Richard Seddon:— “I believe that the cardinal aim of Government is to provide the conditions which will reduce want and oermit the very largest possible number of its people to be healthy, happy human beings.” Before Richard Seddon died he could boast that in social legislation New Zealand led the world and more nearly approached the ideal of the happy state than any other land’.

(To the Editor.)

It is to be regretted that the standard set for our general development by the pioneers of our social fabric is becoming but a memory and it is apparent that Parliament of recent years has not for some reasons possessed many members of outstanding ability, and much less statesmanship. We don’t want the dole, and we should not require soup kitchens, but what we do want is for the Government to arrange the necessary finance whereby a policy of general development can be pursued right throughout the Dominion. We must cling to our traditions, even though the Government appears to lack vigorous initiative. Until the whole question of land settlement and increased production is firmly established on a sound, economic basis, so will our prosperity remain in abeyance. Unless the farmer in this country is prosperous, so must the towns be compelled to fall into line. DEMOCRAT. TROUBLE AHEAD Sir, The spiritual and mental conflict existing in Europe to-day between the ex-Imperialists out of power, and the Republicans in power, will materialise shortly in a clash of arms. The recent event in Poland is a fair indication of the mental tension among European nations. While Russian republicans are not to be congratulated for vicious acts of revenge on ex-Imperalists, Poland’s attitude has, \f anything, aggravated the brutal law of an eye for an eye. Germany, 13 years ago, shone with martial splendour, and has, since the conclusion of war, been brought down to insignficance. The ex-Imperial-ists of Germany, however, unlike those of Russia, make no secret of their intentions, but openly display martial evolutions, and sing “Deutschland Tiber Alles.” A German general recently said that it took nearly the whole world to beat Germany, adding egotistically that not one of the allied soldiers landed on the soil of the Fatherland—a statement very much open to contradiction as we all know, but it is further evidence of the bitter feeling that still exists in the very much disturbed continent of Europe. MATTHEW NICHOLAS KULUZ. Waihi. INTERNATIONAL TRADE Sir, — “International Trade” is wrong in saying I “brush aside the theory that international trade is based on a system of barter.” Yet the term barter is badly strained when applied to trading on credit. Sound trading is barter, but, unfortunately, much trading is unsound and based on faith which is abused and dishonoured. Your correspondent is also wrong in thinking I did not understand that he had “invisible” trade in mind, otherwise he himself would not have indulged in “foolish criticism” of me. The dogma, “imports and exports, rightly calculated, do and must balance,” is sheer bluff, and an example of the way Uncie Sam has tried to pull the wool over our eyes. “Invisible” trade includes certain items of which no record is kept; therefore, being largely an unknown quantity, it. is often impossible to say when invisible imports balance invisible exports. With this unknown and unknowable equation, financial schemers juggle and have the audacity to tell us that,* on account of it, “imports and exports do and must balance.” How comes it that Russia has agreed to pay France £2,880,000 for 62 years on account of pre-war debt, while she ignores private commercial debts, contracted prior to the Revolution? If her “invisible” exports balanced the account how comes she to be in debt at all? Did “barter” put in debt? We know of America’s visible and some of her “invisible” exports whereby she has become a creditor. And your correspondent should have had more sense than to attack our Prime Minister when he desires, because of these things, to sell more to, and buy less from, America. How dare \ve tell Germany to be more careful to balance her accounts, as we are doing, if we are careless to. balance our own?

Whenever trade is sound it is barter, and in that case we do and must I>b> where we sell; and that is also - it pays best.” The slogan, “Buy In tne cheapest and sell in the dearest market,” is not “sound,” but selfish ana silly, for money is not the only consideration. _ BUY WHERE YOU SELL [This correspondence is now closed.— Ed. THE SUN.] RATIONALISM Sir, — The letter of “A.E.C.” in Saturday SUN closes with a definition - Rationalism as “the mental which unreservedly accepts the SUP**' macy of reason and aims at estaoua - ing a system of philosophy and . e ~L. verifiable by experience, and indepe . dent of arbitrary assumptions authority.” This attitude, Uowe . is not peculiar to the Rationalist, is adopted as far as it goes • thoughtful men and women in every church, and by many other® w • while unattached to any denomina ‘ and unclassified in the census r*tu . belong to the larger fraternity Christians. -- While admitting the van*. . Rationalist literature as a pr° tfagainst “arbitrary assumption® , authority” in religion, I think . it is out of date. Studies in v ; and science and Biblical critJc *. sn L or advanced since the standard of Rationalism were written. is not so “circumscribed by v* faith and a book” as it ujj/ ; n * Christianity is not the but Articles or the Apostles’ Creea V P -itt an attitude and an endeavour. and hope are not sustained by au ity. The Christian hope “somehow good will be the nnai © is a reasonable attitude, *. r ea a - Rationalism. In a deep snd ' veT * sense we live by hope. if attitude of Rationalist orr***£* avowedly agnostic. Birnuai . knowledge finds them at a * dean While arbitrary authority are to be avoided, ve • still give to widely accredited *3 trines a thoughtful’ reading thofi whether they possess inherent ity; in other words, whether 3 carry conviction to our nuW®not Rationalism or any otrie . that makes liberal thinkers; 1 0 the champions of certain . v yj. “orthodoxy” may be narrow e . tolerant. Rationalists also may ut ]oolt times fail to attain that wide e 6. so admirably expressed bv Jonn ley: “If any man cannot f(?r let him pray for more light, him and for me.' «(jjL [This correspondence is —Ed., THE 'Stmg