PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20231, 28 June 1937, 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 meir proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

AN INQUIRY.

(To the Editor.)) Sir, —I noticed in Thursday's issue a short article to the effect that tho Government's housing scheme was held up by shortage of materials, although plenty of money was available. This seems puzzling, considering how often we have had it dinned into our ears that, given the money, the goods would be there. But the questions I wish to ask are as follows: (1) Is the Government going to repay the loans raised for publlo works and housing, or (2) has It arranged for “costless credit” that need not be repaid? In the first case, it Is only doing what other extravagant Governments have done—spent huge sums of borrowed money, leaving the generations unborn to carry the | burden. In the second, it has solved the problem of making something out of nothing. Will Mr Barrell kindly tell us which It is?—l am, eto., A. WARBURTON. Ngaruawahla, June 24.

PUBLIO LIFE.

(To the Editor.)) Sir, —“I suppose it is largely due to the existence of rumour-mongering j and character-blackening that many a man whose qualifications would be an asset to public life prefers the obscuI rity of successful business.” Thus the ! Mayor of Auckland at the last meeting ,of his City Council. It is most regrettable that any man who offers his time | and abilities to the people should have | to go through a barrage of abuse and carping criticism, and it is a sorry state of affairs when the tone of public opinion is so low that when a man is prepared to put his services at the j disposal of the people he is generally not given credit for either sincerity of ! intention or honesty ol purpose. However, there is another aspect of this matter which, Sir Ernest Davis i touched upon—probably unconsciously —in his concluding phrase, “the obscurity of successful business.” Members of our House of Representatives receive a beggarly £450 a year and get little opportunity to develop other sources of income because of the Importunities of their constituents. By the time he is 4 0 years of age any man of sufficient education and ability to render him worthy of taking part in the government of New Zealand Is making more than that, and is content to do so. Great Britain has realised the position, and is about to raise the honorarium of the members of the House of Commons to £6OO a year, while Australian Federal members get £950. Is not such a reform overdue here in the interests of competent government?— I am, etc., INDEPENDENT. •Hamilton, June 25.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

(To the Editor.)) Sir, —-Under me above heading “Curious” stated that in his opinion “Mr E. M. Masters writes as an excuse to ride forth on his hobby-horse, Douglas Credit.” In looking over my letter it may have a tinge of that appearance, but, even so, “Curious” would be rather surprised If he heard from what quarter I have secured very sincere congratulations on those five propositions —viz, removal of Garden Place Hill, amalgamation of secondary schools In Hamilton, the West School on a more roomy site, an intermediate or boys’ school at Claudeiands, lowering of railway to eliminate five dangerous crossings, and the hobby-horse, Douglas Credit. “Curious” suggests that money should be borrowed for such works, from such institutions as savings banks, insurance companies and various channels where the savings of people are invested. I say, no. Emphatically no. No interest whatsoever should be charged on public and semi-public works such as roads and ■bridges, railways, and schools. That should all come, from a social credit hank working for the people by the •people—tlie people’s own credit under a properly constituted board of governors. not, nnvprnmpnf pnnlml

Now for the savings of the people. The whole of the small savings could and would be used up on private enterprise. There would be sufficient work to absorb the iot at a fair remuneration. Further, under a sane and scientific system, everyone—I say • everyone—would be assured of a comfortable living and surroundings, provided there was the production (production is the wealth, not money) required to carry out the conditions, and there would he no waste of production. till all the people had ample food, clothing and bousing, for the world can and will produce more and more so long as there are consumers with purchasing power. Further were the “just price” adopted the savings would have a much greater purchasing power; £SO would buy more than perhaps £BO or £9O to-day. < There is no doubt about that. • ' My hobby-horse lias had careful and complete examination by veterinary surgeons, and lias been pronounced sound in wind and limb, with a splendid constitution, by such men as Professor F. Soddv. .T. Stuart Barr (Paseli), A. McNair Wilson. Major l Douglas, Hie Marquis of Tavistock, and by sucli competent trainers as Captain nushworth and Mr Sexton M.P., and such good horsemen as Mr Barrel], M.P., and Mr James Penniket, M.A.—I am, etc.. E. M. MASTERS. Hamilton. .Tune 24.

DANGERB FOREOAST.

(To me Editor.)) Sir, —Under the anove heading in your issue of June 23 Mr H. R. Rodwell, lecturer in economics at 1 land University, is reported as having | set out some of the dangers in conI nection with a guaranteed or fixed ' price for dairy produce. Obviously I the lecturer labours under the delusion j that there Is no other price for the farmer but the so-called “market j price.” Blithely Mr Rodwell ignores j the fact that the farmers of New Zeai land have been, and are being, bled : white through the tremendous inflation of costs within New Zealand. ! As there is little or no support for a worthwhile reduction of oosts, then the obvious remedy is to raise the price of the farmers' production to a i level that will meet his costs and en- ! able him to compete with any other industry for his labour requirements. Apparently Mr Rodwell is not alive to the stupidity of the Government in entering two different currencies in one •account, as is being done in the Dairy Account. It fs most remarkable how the academic mind sticks to the discredited theories of orthodoxy quite regardless of fact.—l am. etc., R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, June 23.

GARDEN PLACE.

(To the Editor.)) Sir, —Some of your correspondents have protested against the council’s persistence with “Exhibit A” in Garden Place. As this exhibit is apparently | being maintained with ratepayers’ ; funds there is some ground for a proj test. Personally I hope that it will | be retained indefinitely, as positive and | ocular evidence of the temper towards I the public of the gentlemen who compose the Hamilton Borough Council. When the Mayor explained that the exhibit had been retained for the “education” of the populace, he could hardly have made his meaning clearer If he had said: “That’ll learn ’em to turn us down.”

The position in which the Mayor has become involved Is somewhat remarkable. When representatives of the council were giving evidence before the Parliamentary Committee on the Garden Place Empowering Bill’ a couple of years ago it was represented that Mr Fow had caused plans to he prepared of a large concrete building, urgently required to replace the premises he now occupies; and, further, that only his high sense of public duty had prompted him to withhold further aotion until The ratepayers had been afforded a chance of deolding whether or not they wished to acquire the site in the interests of the town. Again, just prior to the recent poll it was represented freely by borough councillors supporting the scheme that, far from deriving' any benefit from the purchase of the site, Mr Fow would be adversely affected. Evidently the ratepayers accepted these statements at their face value, because at the recent poll they decided, in a quite emphatio way, that they would not call upon any citizen to sacrifice himself on the altar of public duty. Mr Fow was, in fact, released by the ratepayers from all obligation to refrain from acting in accordance with his business interests. And what is the result? Instead of the feelings of relief and gratitude which one might have expected the only inference I can deduce from the remarks of the Mayor, as specified above, and from his apparent omission to proceed with his building, is that he is bitterly disappointed. Mr Fow has a lengthy and creditable record of service to the public in Hamilton, but the attitude . revealed by him since the taking of the poll is exceedingly unlike that of the man whom Hamilton lias for many years known as the occupant of the mayoral chair. I know of no justification for the petulance he now evinces—other, perhaps, than resentment at the position in which his friends have placed him, and one for which he must blame them.—l am, etc.,

DOUGLAS SEYMOUR Hamilton, June 24.

BRITISH-1 SRAEL BELIEF.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—None of your correspondents favouring the Brltlsh-Israel theory has so far attempted to explain why the New Testament knows nothing of the n lost tribes, or of a “stone Bible,” but indicates from its clear statements that the twelve tribes, Israel, were represented In the land in the days of our Lord and the apostles. Interesting, too, is the fact that the writings of the early fathers know nothing of the “lost tribes.” Another writer has now appeared on the scene, also basing his arguments on Old Testament passages. Now I believe in' the Old Testament just as much as I believe in the New, hut refuse to receive evidence from that source which contradicts the New. It docs nol, hut our friends will persist in advancing Scriptures which are for future fulfilment when Christ shall have relurned and Hi is elect nation will all be back in the promised land, an area extending from “Hie Hiver of Egypt lo the Euphrates.” (Genesis xv.) The prime claim is that the t«n tribes were lost, and have turned up as Great Britain and America. The idea is preposterous, hut it will be of interest to examine Hie claim that only Judah and Benjamin came back from the captivities. It is agreed that there was division afler Solomon, and that both sections went into captivity; Israel in, say, 721 8.C., and Judah 588 B.G. Now in IT. Chronicles xv it is recorded that before the captivities large numbers of Israel joined themselves lo the section Judah, in 941 ,13. C. “Ami Hiev fell lo him (Asa, King of Judah) out of Israel in abundance when they saw that Jehovah his God was with him.” (Verse 10.) Also in 11. Chronicles xi. it is shown that the kingdom of Judah was strengthened by large numbers “out of all the tribes of Israel.” In the face of this It is ridiculous lo suggest that “Judah” represented only two tribes. Upon the return under Ezra we find it is expressly slated that sacrifices of thanksgiving were offered for all the twelve tribes (Ezra viii, 35), and both Ezra and Nehemiah give the number as 42,360 who returned while the particular families enumerated by Ezra amount to only 28,818, by Nehemiah 30,990, indicating ’that ( 1

fhe particular computation related fo ■ludah and Benjamin and the Levites, whose genealogies had been perfectly kept at Babylon, I lie shorter eaplivitv, and Hie balance of 12,000 belonged to (lie ten tribes who had returned with Ibem. but who, on account of their ! wider scattering and longer captivity, Had been unable to preserve their lineage satisfactorily. And with the general permission to return manv more of Israel would return later. Those who did not return, and maintained their identity, were never lost. Paul stated they were “serving God day and night.” There is no ease for Anglo-Israelism except in the minds of those who are I satisfied with “it seems like’it” and | would like it to be so.— I am, etc., • JOSIAII SALISBURY. Hamilton, June 24.