POINTS OF VIEW

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3796, 17 August 1936, Page 5

POINTS OF VIEW

OPINIONS OF OUR READERS.

DISTRICT ATTRACTIONS. Sir, —On reading your paper of August 12th it is observed that the Borough Council is considering ways and means of popularising Te Awamutu. The idea is certainly worthy of consideration, but Te Awamutu at present posseses one novel attraction, never seen in any other decent town in New Zealand, this attraction being its untidy and filthy streets. For a slogan why not adopt the following: "Visit Te Awamutu and admire our disgraceful streets, Boy; Oh Boy; they arc untidy and unique." —I am, etc., CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME. F.S.—For an easier thought; How about tennis on Sundays?

SCHOOL CHILDREN IN TRAINS.

Sir,—The letter which updated in your columns in reply to my comment re the above subject, and signed by "School -Girl,” brings very forcibly before the public eye the type of child (happily in the minority) which the Railway Department and teachers have to cope with. With regard to the tone of the letter itself, and judging by its flippancy and lack of vision and understanding of the problems which confront our teachers and members of the Railway Department r<> all school children travelling on trains, I deem it to be that of a school girl; but, on closer perusal, I take it to be the letter of a parent attempting to camouflage his, or her, daughter's conduct. She opens the letter writing as a school girl, and wanders on in the role of a parent by referring to the secondary school children as “our.” However, writing as a school girl, she shows great ignorance and presumption to even suggest that your readers are misguided. The passengers are many—and are quite capable of judging for themselves, and are not going to be shown right from wrong by a child who alludes to herself as ‘‘Miss," and, by her letter, admits she is seeking enlightenment,' which, I am sorry to say, she is greatly in need of. She sets herself up as an authority on how “Miss 1936” should behave. Is she really of an age to judge innocent fun or otherwise? Let your misguided (?) readers judge for themselves —the impression she conveys is indelible. On the other hand, she does not seem to think she needs enlightenment, and really thinks she is in a position to judge whether or not a railway carriags is an amusement park, or a place for the general public to travel restfully and peacefully. Let her try and bear in mind the old proverb, “Mirth out of season is a grievous ill." By the way, I did not criticise the dress of our High School girls in any way, which was beside the point; but now the subject has been brought up I would suggest that, with a certain school girl, a Victorian touch added to her uniform would not go amiss, when we passengers get a vision of her leaning out of the carriage windows, waist deep, shrieking to youths in paddocks in a voice which can be heard by neighbours some distance away. As to the same young “Miss" having a ball of wool in her hand, it also would not go amiss if transferring to tlie stocking that, at times, is sadly in need of it. By this lemark she evidently does not live up to the standard of “Miss 1936," whose knitting, even though it be necessary to hold a ball of wool, is a credit to her. Re the unhappy childhood that your “School Girl" correspondent assumes I had. Here again her ignorance and presumption overcomes her and comes into prominence, as I made no allu sion to this subject either. I may further state that, if she considers a sometimes erring, but human effort to comply with close supervision by parents and those in authority unhappy, then my childhood was unhappy, but, fortunately, I did not deem it as such. In conclusion, through your valuable columns, I would ask "School Girl" before she rushes into print to sit down and study sentence structure and analysis, and also to put on her “thinking cap” before she refers to a collective number of individuals as “lot.”—I am, etc., TRI-WEEKLY PASSENGER.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Sir,—l .assume that I was not the only one who regretted the decision of the Government that Eric Mareo should not be hanged. That man had been twice convicted of murder, and those jurymen were best able to judge his guilt. It Is all very well for people who were not present throughout both trials to express opinions, but they could not be fully informed. Furthermore, any decision or opinion contrary to the two verdicts must rob trial by jury of its value. Better, then, to dispense entirely with trial by jury. It means now that Mareo is to be confined “for the term ot his natural life” in custody, and all that time he will be a tax on the community. He may live forty or fifty years, and thus his keep will be an annually

recurring expense. And yet those people who profess humane views and opposition to capital punishment deliberately saddle the country with the expense of the man’s custody. I notice a writer in a southern journal advocates sending Mareo to a lonely isle in the Pacific. Is the choice of punishment for murder restricted to death or ordinary incarceration? Why not adopt the idea of putting Mareo, or any convicted murderer, to one of ihe islands? There are plenty ot them, and some not so very far away from New Zealand, either. He could be provided with some comforts and essentials to life. The southern writer suggested that .a collection of clothes, books, writing materials, fishing tackle, etc., could be made, and deposited on the island with him. Any subsequent murderers could be sent to keep the first company. Thus New Zealand would avoid capital punishment, reduce expenditure to the country, and safeguard the community. I only put this forward as a suggestion.—l am, etc., THOUGHTFUL.