Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1074, 11 September 1930, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

“VIVISECTION . HAS RESULTED IN WONDERFUL DISCOVERIES”— WHAT OF THE GRAVE OF NEW ZEALAND’S FIRST “KING”*—" A NOTE ON THE “BOYCOTT BLUDGEON”—MR. FIELD’S THEORIES.

ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE Sir,— I occasionally read that certain goods are “made right in Auckland.” Bravo, Auckland. But why are they not made right in the first place? W.S. FAVOURS VIVISECTION Sir, — It is all very well for anti-vivisec-tionists to jeer at the progress science has made toward the discovery of the cause of cancer, and to- deprecate the use of living animals for experiments in that direction. They should take into account the wonderful results that have been achieved through research work, by means of animals, into other diseases, and the faith that the most advanced doctors and scientists have in this form of investigation. They should also consider the fact that in most cases all pain is prevented by the severing of the spinal cord; though this, of course, would be scarcely effective where the promotion of a cancerous growth was considered. VORONOFF. NAMELESS GRAVES Sir,— As the years go by the memory of our first Governor, Captain William Hobson, appears to be more and more honoured; and that is as it should be. There was a time when very few Aucklanders knew, even, that the man who had chosen the site for their City (apart from other services to the community) lay buried under Grafton Bridge. There are other famous men, lying in the Grafton Cemetery, not the least of them being the famous Baron de Thierry, whose claim to the Kingdom of New Zealand is one of the high lights of our history. I would suggest (and I have done so before) that such graves be suitably indicated. There would be many a sermon in stone in Grafton Cemetery—if one only knew where to look for them! N U K All IV A. “THEORIES AND TRUTH” Sir, — Mr. Field’s letter under the title of the “Genesis story” calls for some comment; not his scientific theories, but his endeavour to reconcile them with the teaching of the Bible. The use of the two terms, “heavens and earth,” by inspired writers is only symbolic except in such places where, from the evidence of the Bible, we can understand the literal heaven and earth are meant. Not so in this case, for “the Lord hath established the earth, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited.” Isaiah xlv.: IS. Further elaborated in Daniel 2: 44—“ In the days

of these kings (coinciding with the return of the, Jews to Palestine) shall the God of Heaven sot up a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed—nor left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms and it shall stand for ever.” The purpose of Jehovah with the earth requires its continued existence. The earth is the reward and inheritance of the righteous, the wicked remaining in the vast eongregatiqn of the perished in corruption. Psalms xxxyii.—9. lxxviii.—69. xxxvii.—9. Ecclesiastes 1: 4, is the revealed purpose of the Holy One. Should we accept Mr. Field’s literal application, then what of the “heavens” also to be remade? The vast possibilities of such a meaning precludes its acceptance other than as a symbol. One other term also calls for criticism, namely, the of God.” This power, as revea*d to men in the Bible, radiates from the Being of the Creator—the First Great Cause. It may be the electron or again it may be that the election is but a stage in its development to be manifested in creation: or shall we term it life in all its spheres, organic and inorganic? Much could be written, supported by the Bible, to correct Mr. Field's vain endeavour to harmonise theory, in the course of substantiation, with Truth. A CHRISTADELPHIAN. AMERICAN FILM WAR Sir, — Although the principal points in the article on the American film war. published by you last evening, are sound and illuminating, much of it —particularly the sort of “call to arms” in the climax—was provocative, and unreasonably so. No Briton or New Zealander worthy of his salt to see the Government knuckle down to Hollywood on this film-tax question, but to give it the significance of an international problem or menace is rather one-sided. The fundamental reasons for America’s domination of the film business today are these: (1) Amusement-seekers, regardless of race, creed, colour or sentiment, demand the best; (2) American enterprise has given them the best films and the best reproducing apparatus; (3) Americans, being shrewd, ruthless business men, have taken full advantage of the position and “horned in” in every possible direction. The Great War cannot be blamed entirely for ‘he deterioration, in the past, of Britain’s film business. When the war -“nded there was plenty of capital available in England, any number of artists and an unfettered market. This staid, stubborn Britain of ours neglected the opportunities that existed, and a few companies were left to produce reels of celluloid mediocrity that dro\ e people out of the theatres. The consequence was that America rose to the top. Britain was given another

chance when talkies appeared, but at the start again missed lamentably. Her men in the business began by wolfing, and scorned to make the bold bid that was needed. Today the position is brighter. Britain is coming into the field more strongly than at any time since 1915. The old. blundering tactics are gradually being abandoned, the worth of British voices ana the superiority of British plays **e winning the Empire round. On tn other hand. America is retaliating b inviting actors and playwrights t Hollywood, and British producers, win* traditional stupidity. are making effort to persuade t hem to stay * home. All this leads to the P 0 wish to make: In view of the fact tnaw picturegoers, like all amusement-see*’ ers, are notoriously selfish in demanding the besa the real . at the back of this film war m * battle of Elstree (England) Hollywood. Unless New Zealand be imbued suddenly with a Oiv* patriotism that will lead them to sa. • “Wo want British films whether tnc be good, bad or indifferent, ana w are not interested in American fih” ' unless, on the other 1 and. British P ducers rapidly give promise of _ superiority, then American procucu - will be sought after avidly in country And where there is a g a P * market, you may wager that Anier by hook or by crook, will fill itonly other alternative is to rican films, either by prohibitive an or by a straight-out barrier. ” oS ‘y. P nt in time, that would be an thing for our rising generation * British producers, many of whom financially associated to a plicated extent with American inl ®vLf —a fact which brings an farce into the suggested paw move. But if American films _ar e ~j barred, the New Zealand P ub Js® T t o have to be content tor some ’ lE r o j cP come with a comparatively tiny of weekly* film shows, and on© te well ask. Why not do the same ? dozens of other American , ?() Surely users of these things ’*• should be “conscripted for the _ ONLOOKER