PUBLIC OPINION.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17971, 17 March 1930, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION.

A* expressed by correspondents. whose letters are welcome, hut for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. THE RAILWAYS. (To the Editor.) Si r> —i have for a long lime been interested in the matter of “how to make the railways pay and the differential freight rates,” and the various speakers’ remarks at the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce are interesting. Air Clapham says the motor services are not paying, and I think he is light. In my opinion the railways must continue to lose money until the motor opposition eventually surrenders, for while private capital is being lost national capital must also be lost. Why Mr Sterling does not increase long distance fares I know not. One can go from Auckland to Wellington at the cost of only one meal plus his fare. How much would it cost for meals by motor service on such a route? I-iow-ever, I referred the matter to my friend “Abe,” who never fails me for an opinion. He says the resolutions considered by the Chamber of Commerce reminded him of “the boy who fell into a ball of string and had lost his pocket-knife.” He further says, "the railways should not be made to pay; they should be run at a loss after being charged interest (he is a firm believer in interest), and the users of the railways then get the use of the railways at cost, for the loss is then borne by users and non-users by way of other taxation, if the railways showed a profit the users of same would be paying too much for their use.” Air Editor, sometimes I see “Abe’s” point, sometimes I don’t. At the present moment how to reduce the present heavy loss on the running of the railways to a “small loss” is occupying the thoughts of friend “.Abe” and — DEEP THINKER. RATIONAL AND RELIGION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Alphonsus W. Sydney has indicted a very -’learned dissertation in reply to my very simple letter on the above theme, lie deals out one or two gratuitous insults which show that despite his high-sounding name and the cause he espouses he has not yet attained to the full rank of a gentleman; he may, however, evolve to that in time. Alphonsus quotes a lot of authorities, hut he omits an appeal to common sense. We are not concerned in this 20th century with a long siring of names of scientists. They no doubt served their day and generation and some of them received a lot of kicks for their pains, as they were up against the priest craft and religious thought of their day. It is not surprising, therefore, that the religious folk, as exemplified by Alphonsus, should heave brickbats and invective at those who do not see eye to eye to them. Alphonsus must know that bishops and priests now subscribe to theories which a few years ago were anathema in the church. It is evident therefore that the church is changing its position. It claims to be built upon a solid and infallible foundation. That foundation, however, has been shown to be anything but stable and the whole structure is quivering to its fall. The fact may not be palatable to Alphonsus W. Sydney. I do not wish to add anything to what I have said regarding “AntiRational’s” letter. She places her faith regarding the future on an authority which has, regarding the past, proved anything but infallible. Of course that is her business, though it is hardly charitable to consign to perdition those who do not agree with her.—l am, etc., RATIONAL.