LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 1160, 30 October 1917, Page 4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

--■ » THE BLOCK SYSTEM. To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —Now that so much is being sa!<l and written about the proposed block system, would it not be as well for all . 1 trades and professions to be under a block system, also the churches an,l all places of religion—and make it a crime punishable by taw for anyone to go to a church that is not in the block in which lie lives? Thus, if you arc a Roman Catholic and there is only on English church in your block—well, von must go there, and vice versa. Remember, what is good for the goose is good | We could then (dose our eyes and tliink that we were in Russia, or a country that is much worse in slavery, THE AWAKENING OF THE SYNCH. j To (he Editor of THE SUN. Sir. —According to the reported address of the Bishop of Christchuivh, at m the opening of the Anglican Chiuvli § Synod, we are told that he rtcj>!< <-d the deadly dullness of the annual iivcf- I ings. Whether Hie remark was provo- 1 cative or not, is an open question, for, if apparently the dry bones, more or 1.-ss j; like those symbolised by Ezekiel, were % somewhat stirred en this occasion. Re i this as it may, an attempt which was | made to vitalise our spiritual pasters, : ;.i received no encouragement. The report states that the discussion was vetoed, If Evidently it is one thing to preach to , jij the laity! but a totally different thin- to [ :$! ! preach for the benefit of the clergy, it '■ Jfl is possible, of course, that what • >,.. *9lpf eurred may have given tood for thought -% to those most interested. Surety it is a *!; bettor tiling to put the house in order, M and find out how you stand, than to f§ acquiesce in a take-it-for-granted 1 method. Although, a section of the 1 laity have an idea that there has heon I a certain amount of drift, since the clays „ of Bishop Harper, and that nonessentials have been unduly pushed M forward, apparently such subjects are m not discussed by the Synod, even M though it is admitted that fewer males 'IB attend church now, in comparison with Wft the number that attended in former || years. What is the reason, and where ||| is the remedy? Surely it is not through M a mistaken emulation of Nahash the W Ammonite, by our clergy.—l am. etc., *^ AN UNPOPULAR SERVICE. To the Editor of THE SUN. i Sir, —With reference to the report in your issue of the 2<sth inst., re tlie. railway service, I would like to stato that the railway service is most unpopular with nine-tenths of its employees. As a railway employee with more years -9 of experience than I care to think of, T can say truthfully that when Mr \"M -i Hampton said that pin-pricking existei/ J in the railway service lie spoke tie truth. Mr Hampton is also an emplow of the railway service, and he know j what he was talking about when he I made the remark credited to him. The I general public have not the slightest I idea of the railwayman's life, and how I miserable it is made by the everlasting |9j pin-pricking that goes on. The quantity I of correspondence that takes place over | trivial matters, the eternal queries, the ■ please explains, etc., are very largely 1 responsible for so many employees seek- I ing employment elsewhere. There is 1 not more than one man in every linn- 1 dred in the railway service who would | '• say, if asked, that he would make a *? §| railwayman of his son. We all have too | | much respect for our sons, and too great W& a regard for their future prospects to M consider for one moment putting them jSj in the railway-service. The Hon. Mr Herries (Minister of Railways) said lie had made inquiries into Mr Hampton's statement, and that he had ascertained that there was no pin-pricking. Tt would be very interesting to know Inc.,- ; far his inquiry went. I know that no j inquiry was made in any district cilli.-e. ':' How was the inquiry made? 7)id lie ?j inquire from the heads of the various j departments? If so, it does not require I a great imagination to know what the ' reply would be. The only way to dis- ! cover whether pin-pricking does nr ; does not exist is to start from the buttorn of the service, i.e., from amongst I the low-paid men, and make inquiries, I and I am sure the inquirers would have | their eyes opened. Mr Herries "s state- | ment is really amusing. Fancy any re- | sponsible officer of the Railway Depart- | ment admitting that pin-pricking exist- S ed. I sincerely hope the member who 1 brought this matter up in the House will I not let it drop at Mr Herries's reply. | Let inquiries be made amongst those | who are not at the top of the service, 8 and I am sure thousands of instances of j piu-prieking will be discovered, and j ONE WHO KNOWS.