LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 1053, 27 June 1917, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

I NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT. " Constant Render."—You arc scarcely fair to the Church as an institution. We pass on your suggestion that religious folk should rr.n a free picture show, the films to be selected by the He v. Mr North. NATIONAL ECONOMY. To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir,—The last ballot .shows about 120 farmers, ploughmen and farm labourers drawn for Military Service in North Canterbury only. Strange to say gold miners are exempt. Now the 131(5 Year Book shows -1149 persons employed in working gold mines, dredges, and claims, in 1915, and their production of bullion was valued at .V.i,348.481). That gives an average of £325 per head. If a farmer grows 40 acres of wheat, [yielding 30 bushels per acre, at 5/6 per bushel that would be worth £330. It woidd supply a year's wheat consumption for 200 persons. Three or four neighbouring farmers working together could manage to produce three or four times that acreage of wheat without outside heh), or one farmer with or three farm workers could do it. But besides the wheat, the farmers would produce also, beef, mutton, wool, pork, cheese, butter, potatoes, etc. Before the war there were about 100,008 men employed in agricultural and pastoral industries. How many have since enlisted I do not know! The agricultural and pastoral exports for 1915 amounted to over £27,000,000, which gives an average of about £270 per man. To this must be added the value of farm produce consumed in New Zealand. Also, by this year's farming the land and stock are being prepared for following years, weeds kept down, hedges and fences kept up, ditches kept iopen. So long as the Avar lasts, and so long as bank notes are legal tender, we do not require the gold, but we do want all the corn, meat, wool, butter, cheese, etc., that we can produce as soon as we can get it, not only for ourselves, but to help feed Britain and our Allies, and help save the world from famine. No doubt England wants all the gold she can get, but instead of employing 4000 men to dig up more gold, why should we not "comb out" all the sovereigns now lying useless in the banks? They might just as well be deposited at interest in the Bank of England, or used to pay off so much of the public debt, and so save interest. Farming, not gold mining, is the most essential industry! The men who sow the wheat are the only men who really know how and when to reap, carry, and properly (!) stack wheat; also to manage the horses, cattle and isheep, and to provide for them. President Wilson says that the man who is growing wheat is doing his duty as well as the lighting man. New Zealand has enlisted some 7 or 8 per cent of her population. If America does likewise why should we "comb out" our last man? If we do, how can we do our duty by providing food and wool, not only lor ourselves, and for the dependants of our soldiers, but for export, and to pay interest and war expenses?— I am, etc.,

J. MILES -VERRALL. Swannanoa, June 25, 1917. ATTACK ON REV. J. J. NORTH. To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —As an admirer of fair play and one who has usually found himself in full accord with The Sun's attitude on matters of public interest, I was deeply grieved to read the intolerant attack made in your leader in Saturday's issue. It was so uncharitable and unfair that I am forced to the conclusion that it "slipped in" without being censored. Those who know of Mr North's work in the city of Wellington in connection with the suppression of pony racing, improvements effected in billiard saloons and in many other directions, have a very high respect for him as a champion of righteousness, lie can doubtless afford to ignore the attack made on him, but as one of a large body of citizens which deplores Ihc wholesale condemnation of a man because his views do not coincide with our own, I take strong exception to the article in question. You refer to 'his fulminatioas on matters that do not concern him," but as a good citizen, surely Mr North and every other clergyman is concerned with matters which affect the well-being of the community.—l am, etc., EAIR PLAY. June 26\ 1917. [A correspondent who could imagine, as docs "Fair Play," that a leading nriicle could "slip in without being censored" betrays such a sad lack of ordinary intelligence that his opinions are not worth serious consideration. In the circumstances, his "strong exception" to the article leaves us quite unmoved.—Ed. The Sun. J

WAR WIDOWS. To the Editor of THE SLN. Sir, —Now that our political leaders have returned, and Parliament will soon be assembled, may 1 be allowed to use your valuable columns to point out that some legislation is necessary to protect the interests of parents of soldiers who marry just before leaving for active service. In the first place a man has to be lit before he is accepted, and that means that his parents, more especially his mother, has given years of toil and anxiety to bring him up to that standard. (The mother who is careless of her children is probably the mother of the "rejects"'); then jjust before hj leaves New Zealand some chit of a girl, or a young woman without an atom of honour or even common honesty in her composition, gels round him to marry her. The consequence is if ! he is killed in action or dies of wounds, she claims a pension, also any moneys that maj be due to him from insurance, etc. Do you consider this is just to the parents who have borne the heat and burden of tlie day, by bringing up and provid ing for their sons to the best of their ability? There are hundreds of parents suffering in this way all over New Zealand. Also, it will be a lax on the coming generation for many years to pay the pensions to these unscrupulous young women, who are well able to earn their livim?. —I am. etc., A VICTIMISED PARENT. HIGH TENSION LINESMEN. To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —Referring to the two letters appearing in your journal on Saturday regarding exemption of trained men on the Late Coleridge scheme, I should like to point out to "Late linesman" and "Square Deal," that they apparently ignore the main point in essential industries, i.e.,

efficiency. All essential industries must be run economically and efficiently for the successful prosecution of the war. Compare any business or industry (no matter how small) with a machine. Take awaycertain parts and replace them with jan inferior article, or run a machine with inferior oil. What is the result? Loss of power, therefore, inefficiency and so much waste of money. Precisely the same thing applies to a business or industry—to replace I highly-trained men with unqualified partially-trained men means lagging jmethods, therefore inefficiency, and .waste of money, which is so necessary at this time. If your correspondents are doubtful ;sbout efficiency being an argument for the exemption of highly trained men I would ask them to |carefully calculate how much it costs the City of Christchurch and suri rounding districts (during working (hours) when the 6000 horse-power |from Lake Coleridge is unavoidably cut off owing to break-down on the ihigh tension tr.-nsmission lines, or other unavoidable causes. They will 'probably find that it costs at least ji'lOO per minute. In conclusion, allow me to inform |"Late Linesmen" and "Square Deal" that if many of the trained men who I have helped to make the scheme the success it is, were to resign and be replaced by incompetent men, it would cost Canterbury a few Thousand pounds each "year— the iprice of inefficiency.—l am, etc., EFFICIENCY.

TRUE TOLERANCE. To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir,—What does Griffith mean to teach in his film, "Intolerance"? Is it not as important to discuss his thought, as it is to discuss his picture? Worthy citizens differ about the film. Is it possible to agree about the teaching? Does Griffith's anywhere teach that evil should be tolerated? I question it. Certainly, he nowhere appears as the advocate of an easy tolerance. His one loud contention is that human society will never be freed from the spirit of intolerance until it becomes really and completely Christian. I will try to prove my case: By means of four great scenes, drawn from different periods of the world's history, humanity is shown to be suffering cruelly,at the hands of intolerants. Social reformers and monarchs, political parties and priestly cliques are seen wielding the law, or the "sword, to force their own particular ideas on the rest of. the community, without regard to the feelings or rights of their fellows. And the spirit of Christ, divinely sympathetic and self-sacrificing, is shown to be the only power which can overcome this spirit of intolerance.

In the modern scene, it appears in the person of the "kindly friend,*' who, at great personal cost, is able to right the wrong, and free the innocent. In the St. Bartholomew seene, it appears in the Catholic priest whose sectarian spirit yields to the Christ within, as, unfolding his cloak, he hides the Hagenot child from the swords of his friends. It appears in the Bihlieal scenes, in the spirit of Jesus. In the Babylonian scene it is found in the mountain girl who suffers and dies in an utterly unselfish spirit. And, lest this teaching should have heen missed, our composer makes it crystal clear in the final scene. Across a modern battlefield, symbolic, of imperial intolerance, flash two bars of light, in the form of a cross, throwing the mind back to the One who died for men on Calvary. Then, the scene suddenly changes, and a new city is seen, wherein humanity is at peace and little children are at play. At long last, the Spirit of Christ has overcome the spirit of intolerance. The lesson is surely plain—that only Christ can usher in a true tolerance, and save society. Is not this the teaching of this picture?—l am, etc., A. LIVERSEDGE.