The Waipawa Mail WEDNESDAY, DEC. 11, 1929. PASSING NOTES.

Waipawa Mail, Volume LI, Issue 37, 11 December 1929, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail WEDNESDAY, DEC. 11, 1929. PASSING NOTES.

Hawking By-law. A curious position lias arisen in regard to the County by-law in respect to the fees charged for hawkers’ licenses. Mr Justice Ostler recently, on an appeal from a decision of Mr A. M. Mowlem, S.M., declared the bylaw null and void on the ground of unreasonableness, and the various counties working under that by-law are now in the position of not being able to impose any fee. The anomaly will, of course, he remedied shortly, hut meantime the country districts offer a free field for the itinerant trader. The general question of hawkers’ licenses is a difficult one. On the one hand the local authorities show a commendable desire to protect people in the country from the annoyances of the undesirable pedler, whilst on the other hand many of these travelling salesmen serve a very useful purpose in supplying the needs <>t people who cannot spare the time to get into town to do their shopping. The latter class of hawker will not object to paying a reasonable fee for the privilege, and it would to a certain extent protect them against the unscrupulous methods of some pedlers.

Alleged Cures. During the past few days different newspapeis have featured the alleged cuie which an Auckland clergyman has discovered for tuberculosis. The clergyman in question has received the sanction of Archbishop Aveiill to make his discovery public, hut the medical fraternity are not taking kindly to it. That is not to he wonde.ed at. In the fir. t place they have the M.B.A. to consider. This is n very exclusive association, very jealous of any encroachments on what they consider to be their prerogative rights. In the second place the discoverer of the alleged “cure” declines to make his specific public on the grounds that he is afraid that it may he commercialised. This is a quite commendable point of view. Our readers will probably remember that Spahlingcr, the Swiss authority on tuberculosis, declined for the same reason to make his discovery public. Hut why should the discoverer of any particular “cure” be afraid of commercialisation if the discovery is of any real value? Is it not more essential to consider the well-being of the human race than to withhold information because publicity may benefit a tew individuals? With all respect to Archbishop Averill and the clergyman who is the discoverer of the alleged cure, wo submit that the public are entitled to more information before they accept the specific which it is claimed will remedy one of the greatest ills of the age.