Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 685, 10 June 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

THE EMDEN Sir, — In the midst of the controversy invoked by the visit of the Emden to this Dominion, the letter of your correspondent, “Engineer Bulldog,” puts the right construction on the visit. I should describe it as a piece of sheer bravado. Had it been any other named boat, commanded by any other officer, there would probably have been little rancour displayed, but the name Emden was not too savoury in this part of the world. BRITISH. POLITICS AND POLICY Sir, — It was with great interest that I read your leading articles this week commenting on the Prime Minister’s Town Hall meeting last Tuesday. As an elector expecting to hear something new and wonderful from Sir Joseph Ward, I attended this meeting, but only to be sadly disappointed. The speaker did not bring forward any new proposals or attempt to give us anything definite as to the settlement of the unemployment question. With reference to the South Island trunk railway, he simply said there was no such thing as South versus North, adjured his hearers to “leave it to him” and everything would be all right, and the large audience responded with applause and swallowed everything it was told to swallow. However, it is refreshing to read that the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates has not been sleeping and will have a lot to say during the coming session. As he wisely* says, “the country' is now getting all that it asked for.” NORTH ISLAND. THE EMBRYO Sir, Your correspondent, Mr. Norman Burton, says he was rather hasty in his first criticism of Professor Sper-rin-Johnson’s address to the Rotary' Club. Speaking for my'self lam convinced that the lecture does nothing to prove the validity of the Evolution theory'. There was, as might be expected, much useful information, but the deductions were questionable. I submit that embryology provides no argument for the Evolutionist; only another argument for the universality of design. I took part in the discusi sion at the University', and Mr. Bur- [ ton must have misunderstood my

meaning. He says: “One who took part in the discussion stated that Professor E. W. Mcßride is an anti-Evo-lutionist.” I said nothing of the kind. I quoted from Mcßride’s book, wherein he says: “It must be granted that this so-called law (recapitulation in the embryonic stage) is only' a daring assumption. There is no obvious a priori reason why the embryo should embody an historic record of its growth.” That is surely different from a claim that Professor Mcßride was an anti-Evolu-tionist. Mr. Burton has been “too hasty” again. REUBEN E. DOWLE, A.V.1., Ph.S. “WHAT NEXT AT HOME” Sir.— In your issue of June 3, writing under the above heading with reference to the Liberal and Labour Parties, you say: “In any case, the only difference between them is the letter ‘R.’ Politically Labour is supposed to be revolutionary, while the Liberals claim to be evolutionary'. Now that Labour and the country have slaughtered Commun- i ism and everything of a Bolshie character, there is no reason why the two parties should not both be evolutionary' as a composite administration.” With all respect, we think you have here given the Socialist Labour Partycredit for something it does not claim for itself. The party is not merely i supposed to be revolutionary, but actually declares itself to be so. It is true that it does not declare for physical revolution. It does, however, affirm the policy of transforming the whole economic basis of society, by substituting national and collective ovvnerstilo of the means of production, distribution and exchange for private ownership, which is distinctly revolutionary'. The difference between 'it and the Communist Party is that the latter stands for revolution by the method of physi- ; cal force, and the former by methods of confiscatory taxation and political subversion. It is sometimes suggested that this aim of revolution is only' that of the Left Wing members in the , Labour Party. That this is not the case is shown in the following s tatement made by Mr. Arthur Henderson at Burnley: “I know of very little dif- { * e r re £ ce between the chairman of the I.L.P. and the secretary of the Labour Party or between the opinions of the . Le £ t and the Right. The aims and purposes of the Labour movement are the same among all its repre(Continued in next column.)

sentatives.” In assuming that Labour and the country have slaughtered Communism and everything of a Bolshie character, are we not forgetting these important facts? The 1.L.P., which has considerable influence in the National Labour Party, goes much further than half-way on the lines of Communism. A number of those returned as Labour members are pronouncedly Bolshevik, though not members of the official Communist Party. Further, the British Communists did not wish to contest seats as a distinct party, and only did so under direction of the Moscow executive. The slaughter of their official candidates does not, in our opinion, give any indication of the strength or weakness of Communism in Britain, as much cf it is disguised under the names Labour. Minority Movement, Left Wing, I.LJP. and other convenient aliases. What may come next at Home will depenJ. we think, on whether the Liberals and Conservatives are determined to carry on their traditional fund instead of recognising fully the altered circumstances of British politics. N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE.

PAYING THE DOCTOR Sir, — Following a recommendation brought down by the Legal and Finance Committee, the Takapuna Borough Council recently sanctioned payment of an account owing to a doctor by one of the staff for medical services rendered. The council’s employee was receiving a salary of £ 300 a year, and was well able to pay the account. Only one member of the council challenged the recommendation. In my opinion as the members of our present local administration are the trustees of the ratepayers, the council cannot function as a benevolent society. A serious and unwarrantable precedent has been created, and the time is opportune when the Government should be asked to check extravagance of this kind. RATEPAYER NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT R.H.—ln The Sun’s report no reference was made to the incident you mention.—Ed., The Sun.