PUBLIC OPINION.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18409, 17 August 1931, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION.

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

DOLE IN ENGLAND. (To the Editor.) Sir. —i n your issue of the 13th inst. it Dr. G. H. Robertson, when addressing the Wanganui Rotary Club, state it it a professional footboller in England, after working for two day 3 and drawing £B, can obtain the dole for the remainder of the week. Now, Sir. as an ex-professional footballer in England. I challenge Dr. Robertson’s statement, which I know by my own experience to be incorrect. A footballer when he signs for a club has to report to his club the first Wednesday in August, and from then on to the second Saturday in May he has to ’3port at the club’s ground every morning, except Sundays, at 9. 30 o’clock for training, hours of training being 9.30 a.m. to 12 noon. 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., except days of matches, when he has to be on the ground one hour before kick-off. For this he is paid as follows:—Division 1. player £8 per week, Division 11. and HI. player £5 to £7 per week, and when he signs his agreement he is solely in the employment of his club. Therefore I fail to see where Dr. Robertson obtained his information. Now, Sir, in England a man has to be unemployed for three days before he can become entitled to the dole. Dr. Robertson says the professional footballer for two days is employed playing football, so I fail to see how lie can obtain the dole for the remainder of the week, as, according to the Unemploy-

ment Act, tliat two days a week counts as employment. I consider the remarks of Dr. Robertson are a slur on a splendid body of sportsmen —viz., professional footballers of the Old Country—and as one of them :n the past myself I considered the remarks unjust. If Dr. Robertson would like a full routine of the work of the professional footballer at Home I would only be too pleased to furnish him with the same. —I am, etc., E X- PR 0 F ESSI ON AL FOOTBALLER. Frankton. THE NEW BRIDGE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The hint given by your correspondent “Go Slow” in Friday's issue regarding the possibility of the Hamilton Borough Council definitely committing the borough to the erection of a bridge outside the town boundary, and financing it without reference to the ratepayers, should be looked into. I am convinced that a very large section of the residents agree that the bridge is a matter which could well remain in abeyance for the present. It may be desirable, but it is not urgent, and it could well bo held back until the economic and | financial position is more stabilised. At present everything is fluid, and while the bridge would no doubt provide work for a large number of men, it would be folly to undertake It for that purpose solely. Work for the unemployed should be considered from the development and reproductive aspects, so that there will be some return from it. To undertake works on borrowed money at present would be suicidal, and can only add burdens which we would deeply regret In the not distant future. As one of your previous correspondents pointed out the other day, the burden on ratepayers at present is exceedingly heavy; to add thereto until the financial horizon is a little brighter would be folly. —I am, etc., CAUTION. NATURE’S PRUNING HOOK. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I hasten to thank Mr John Sykes for a very thoughtful and timely letter on the above, and to endorse most heartily the sentiments expressed by him with ’regard to Sir Arthur Keith’s pagan platitudes. The pleasure of doing so is enhanced by the fact that I differ essentially from Mr Sykes on tariff questions. The above question however, involves our social and cultural well-being, and is therefore on a higher plane that national policies or local politics. Sir Arthur Keith represents the most modern British sample of the stalwart brigade of materialistic pagan philosophers who have been a feature of the western cultural retrogression of the past half-century. Material progress owes them much, but cultural Inheritance has suffered a dreadful set-back at their hands. The Darwinian thesis, though demonstrably true and admittedly wonderful, has been seized upon by materialist philosophers to justify their pernicious doctrine of the survival of the fittest; the fittest (under their limited conception) being those in command of the means of material force. The culminating phase of this doctrine appeared in August 1914, n a welter of bloodshed and the bankluptcy of hitherto recognised moral standards. Darwin or Wallace never Intended their conclusions to mislead men, and were concerned only with finding the truth of the origin and development of species. The dark, arduous and tortuous trail which man has ascended in his struggle towards love and light and mind has necessarily nothing to do with the sane and rational highway which is now his for the taking. The erroneous idea that human possibilities are limited by heredity and changes must necessarily be slow is now exploded, and I venture to say that the Japanese adventure against Russia and Hie German ; military adventure misdirected in • both cases to the ends of destruction) ! have disproved the theory of the limits of heredity. I further venture the I opinion that the much misrepresented | movement in Russia is a cultural 1 movement, imposed on the minds of the young by far-sighted teachers. The medium through which these teachers work is the emotions of the people, a medium which in all peoples | is stronger ami more potent than j reason. This is |ru ■ even of the I British people, though our particular 1 p t.-o* is tn conceal or seek to discredit, j our emotions. The heart rather than | the he.id. as Mr Sykes truly >ays, will I w:n out against all opposition in the I long run. The young Russians are i willing to work hard, to eat less, to go an* where, suffer anything, tn make ; holy Russia self-supporting and able it” with.-da nd an alleged ring of cap--1 ilalist nations who hate them ami are i planning their destruction. True or i not. according to New Zealand stand I ards. this dope is working. It is a 'cultural movement. The Fascist I movement of It i.y is also a cultural 1 m.-vement ami ba>cd on emotion rather th.m re.■'■'ii. In t!ii> ease, liowewr, j.irnied :■•:•■ '• i> in evidence ami impcr- . ambitions may well wreck an ■ . a line cultural edifice. It is

this latent emotional force which we [ must enlist to discredit war and save- 1 civilisation from destruction. The j future dominance of the world, which 1 will be a purely economic and cultural ' one, win be the gift of whatever , people are great enough to forgo the , present for the future; to make sacri- ■ flees, here and now. for the furtherance of their children’s wellbeing. If we are to wrest this prerogative from the Fascists, the Communists or the Germans, then it is high time we started, since we are surely last in the field when it comes to defining a cultural objective and making sacrifices for its attainment. All British countries are in dire financial straits. The Mother Country is living on her capital and losing her trade. Millions of our people are drawing idle rations to support life and avoid revolution, whilst our politicians (blind leaders of the blind) talk platitudes. Reason (of the orthodox kind) will presently fail. Force will fail to support it, and emotion will then get its first real hearing. Let us pray that a sufficient number of big-hearted men and women will be available to direct this potentially divine force to unselfish and beneficial ends.—l am, etc., C. A. MAGNER. Te Kowhai, August 14, 1931. COUNTRY AND TOWN. | (To the Editor). Sir, —It appears from a statement made by the Hon. A. D. McLeod at a meeting of farmers in the Wairarapa district the other day that he looks with suspicion upon both “fusion” ami “coalition” in their relation to politics. He knew many people, particularly in Hie cities, so he told his audience, who honestly favour fusion, but he had no hesitation in saying these folk have not the remotest knowledge of the political psychology of the farmers. There are many among us, it must be confessed, who are not familiar with the psychology of the farmers, political or otherwise, and wc should be pleased to have Mr McLeod’s enlightenment upon so interesting a subject. Meanwhile Mr McLeod has let us know that fusion and coalition ace “entirely different matters,” fusion being a permanent amalgamation, while coalition is but a temporary expedient such as the one which existed between the Reform Government and the Liberal Opposition during the Great War. “In Australia, following the termination of the war,” Mr McLeod emphasises, “in both the Gominonwealln and the States, war-time Coalition Governments carried on as fused Governments. In every instance tills I was immediately followed by the growth and formation ef the Country Party- and the placing of Labour in olfice at a more or less early date. The plain truth is that in New Zetland, no more than in Australia, do farmers accept city methods as being altruistic.” Mr McLeod already has been corrected in his wild assertion concerning HlO appearance of Labour In oifice in Australia. Labour's attainment of office in the Commonwealth had nothing whatever to do with either fusion or coalition, and it is little short of an outrage to imply, with a sneer, that the farmers as a body in this country do not “accept city motives as being altruistic.” For 50 years or thereabouts the urban and suburban electors have conceded an advantage of 28 per cent, to rural electors in parliamentary representation, to say nothing of other advantages that have been readily conceded to fanners by the State. And yet Mr McLeod thinks the time opportune to cast doubts upon the sincerity of the farmers’ best friends! Surely this is not the kind of electioneering that will furnish the Dominion with a Parliament capable of speedily extricating it from the difficulties by which it is beset.—l am, etc., HOPEFUL. —— JI