POINTS OF VIEW

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 61, Issue 4320, 16 August 1940, Page 5

POINTS OF VIEW

OPINIONS OF OUR READERS. FOOTPATHS. Sir,—After thirty years of concrete work may I offer a few suggestions on same ?.—'less water in the mix, use only wooden floats, all work to be grouted, and no wood to be left in the joints. For others’ follies teach us not How much their wisdom, preaches,, For the only thing of sterling worth Is what our own experience teaches. —I am, etc., 1 -WATER. PETROL ECONOMY.

Sir, — ‘We have all seen signs of petrol licensing and the curtailment of private enterprise. At the Post Office, when we ask for a few more gallons, we are subjected to a close examination, reminded of the war, and the need to conserve petrol, and told to find other means of travelling or conveyance. But, once away from the Post Office, we look around and see, and then wonder about all the praiseworthy advice postal officials have given us. W'e see local body trucks just as though nothing had happened. When we talked about our business we were advised to walk regardless of time, or we were told to use other means of conveyance without thought of cost. But the County Council truck goes about just the same; the Borough Council truck contained a load that could have been easily pushed along in a wheel-bar-row, when last I saw it; and, also, the Power Board sends a man gallivanting all around the country in a motor car to read meters when he could use a push bike—-just as one of its meter-readers has been forced to do for years ! Wjhen we see this sort of thing every day, and when we are knocked back with advice when we want a few gallons for our own business, is it surprising if we say—< BOSH WITHIN THE RANKS. Si)r,—-I have been informed that arrangements have almost been completed for the opening of a wet canteen at W.aiouru, where the Territorial Camp is to be held, and ihis letter is to protest and to solicit the protests of right-thinking people against such a catastrophe taking place. Folio wing are some reasons why lawabiding and right-thinking citizens should determinedly protest against wet canteens being introduced into the Waiouru camp:— 1. The provision of alcoholic drinks in of exercise is a serious detriment to the health of the troops, to their efficiency as citizens and soldiers, and that, at times of crisis, such provision will prove subversive of social and military discipline. 2. The provision of wet canteens in camps of exercise containing youths under the age of 21 years would constitute a moral violation by the Government itself of section 202 of the Licensing Act, 1908. 3. That such a violation would be fiercely resisted by many parents and others, and would unnecessarily and very unhappily introduce political and social enmities into a work which should be non-political and purely patriotic. 4. Provision of a wet canteen at Waiouru in the King Country will be resented by those who regard strictly the obligations and promises made by the New Zealand Government to the Maori people.

As one who believes that we are fighting for the very existence of Christianity, and thus for right, I take strong exception to the introduction of wet canteens, Which must weaken rather than strengthen morality, which must degradb rather than uplift, which must draw away from rather than to God, and challenge parents and those who believe in the right to stab this enemy which lurks within the very ranks of our boys, who are prepared to give their all for their country and their God, by protesting emphatically against such an atrocity being allowed to happen. In order that all who care may do so, a petition has been drafted, and anyone who cares to sign it will be given the opportunity at the Baptist Church on Sunday evening. Public opinion counts, and each signature appended will help to destroy this enemy which is to be placed in the midst of our boys.—.l am, etc., A. F. SIMPSON, Pastor, Baptist Church. WEDNESDAY’S MEETING.

Sir, —For impudence the letter of “ Lavengro ” which appeared in Monday’s paper would be hard to beat. Wihile this war on on, with all of its seriousness, he brazenly talks about a political battle that is to come, and he pictures the whole thing as a Socialist victory. When, however, he reminds us that the Government is able to turn a deaf ear to the shouts of those who hold public meetings, he suggests that in place of a system of popular government there is a Socialist dictatorship. According to report, Hitler and Mussolini yes, and Stalin, too—all turn deaf ears on other than shouts of approval. Let me ask “ Lavengro ” a question. Does this Government turn a deaf ear on the shouts of the trades unions ? But the main weakness of “ Lavengro’s ” case is the rottenness of his opinions about Wednesday’s meeting, and again I ask him if that meeting had been organised by the trades' unions would he have spoken of it in such a disparaging manner ? If it will help him to broaden his narrow outlook he can take note of my position. For over forty years I worked for the Government of this country, and for nearly all that time I paid into a superannuation fund. First of all my contributions were administered by the Public Trustee, but later on there was compulsory transfer to the Superannuation Fund. Whether I liked it or not, a deduction was

made from my salary, and through all these years I was compelled to economise. But I was assured that I would receive a certain annuity, and when I was eventually retired the stated amount, no less and no more, was available. But before very long this Government said I had to pay from my annuity and, remember, please, that it was my compulsory accumulated savings—to a new fund called Social Security— <a fund froip which I could never hope to benefit because 1 had already set aside for my final days in retirement. But that was not the end of it, andthis brings me to the complaint at Wednesday’s meeting. The Government now doubles the contribution I must make from my annuity, not only on payments to be made, but on the payments that were made last year. Does “ Lavengro ” think that is fair or just or right ? If his breed of Socialism stands for treatment of that kind then he must never be surprised if he finds me taking part in public meetings, because he must remember that I have no trades union to catch the ear of the Government, and I have no Arbitration Court to make somebody else pay my contributions to the National Security or any other fund. “ Lavengro ” ought to have the good sense to keep out of print and to ston shouting about social justice.—l am, etc., FED UP. REPLY TO “EQUALITY.” Sir, —“ Lavengro ” has often fished, generally witn meagre results. In ract, he was inclining to the belie t that the seas had become stagnant ana the fishes idle. But, lo and behold ! ne has scored a bite; and certain 'us a formidable monster that has snatened up the bait and now tugs on nis line. • Equality ” considers my mind “ warped and biassed ” —a phrase slightly hackneyed through over-use by those who communicate with newspaper editors and almost synonymous with “ Bolshevik ” in its indiscriminate application to all who hold opinions different from one’s'own. If it is warped, Nature must answer; if biassed, I can only blame an environment which is prolonged by worldwide blind adherence to so-called custom and orthodoxy and deep-rooted antipathy to change. “ Equality ” himself ranks with the many who argue from the particular to the general; consequently he is quite unable to distinguish between the exception and the rule. He objects to my word “ paltry.” Yet at a time when millions are engaged in a life-and-death struggle he justifies a public meeting which he admits confuses the more important war effort on the grounds that a certain woman (I neither question the truth of his assertion nor deny the difficulties of the good lady in question) is the victim of injustice. His detailed explanation and arithmetical calculations still leave the question trivial. Democracy is government by a majority to suit a majority. Your correspondent seemingly desires a system that will guarantee ideal treatment to all; legislation that will adjust the “ pelites affaires ” of himself and his neighbours. That is nothing less than self-seeking egoism of the worst type. Such men, sir, do not need governments—they want valets.—l am. etc., LAVENGRO.

P.S;—I almost forgot—such is the curse of “warped” minds—“ Equality” leaves unchallenged the chief argument of my former letter, namely, the futility of Wednesday’s meeting. Victory I One flank at least withstands the storm !—L.