PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20246, 15 July 1937, Page 11

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 enolose ineir proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

HAMILTON PUBLIC LIBRARY. (To the Editor.) Sir, —For a long time I have been expecting to see a real good clean up of the reading desks on which the newspapers are displayed. With the help of hot water, -sand-soap and brush, plus elbow-grease, a great change for the better could soon be made. It is to be hoped the Library Committee will have this much-needed work put In hand.—l am, etc., HAMILTON RESIDENT. Hamilton. July 13 GARDEN PLACE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —we have It on good authority that “the law is an ass," and apparently this “ass” is looking towards Garden Place as a suitable grazing paddock. Now if this “ass” can break the poll by creating a “special rating area," should the present council go in again at the next election it should be possible for the “ass" to turn round and kick the cojncil out by means of an alteration in the voting area.—l am. etc., W.L.G. Hamilton, July 13. STREET LEVELS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Appearing in your columns of Monday, 12th inst., there was a letter written by one Douglas Seymour, dealing with street levels, in which some reference is made about my department’s activities. Ido not usually take any notice of such letters, but I have had so many inquiries to-day asking if 1 know what the letter was about that I had perforce to study it. As I cannot make head nor tail of it l would welcome enlightenment as to its meaning.—I am, etc., R. WORLEY, Borough Engineer. Hamilton, July 13. BRITISH-ISRAELISM. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The statements of “Puzzling” are all right, and personally I welcome open discussion. I do not accept his view that nobody understands the Old Testament. Mr Leitoh says the Old and New Testaments are different books, distinct from each other. I say you canot understand either of them without getting the keys to the figurative or symbolic language used, from both books. Mr Leltch poses as an authority on the Old Testament. Can he explain who the three shepherds are who will be cut off in one month (Zechariah xi, 8) ? He can find the answer in the New Testament. The Antichrist Is spoken of by all the prophets of the Old Testament, but you have to go to the New Testament before the Man of Sin can be revealed to you. You are told to look for the number of a man's name (or title). Take the letters of his titles, use them as numerals, and add them up, and they will be 666. Different languages have different numerals. There are Chaldean, Hebrew, Greek and Latin titles. Italy was called Saturn by the Chaldeans and Rome was called the City of Saturn—Saturnia: S (60) a (0) t (400) u (6) r (200) n (0) i (0) a (0), equalling 606. King Romulus built Rome, his name in Hebrew being Romiith —R (200) o (6) m (40) I (10) i (10) t (400) h (0), equalling GG6. There are the country and the city. See Revelation xvii for the symbolic city and Revelation xlii for the man’s number.—l am, etc., HARRY GORE. Hamilton, July 13. COUNT VON LUCKNER. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The writer has no particular brief for a man simply because he happens to be a count. However, the entry of Count von Luckner into this Dominion of ours is centred about the question pertaining to freedom in the absolute. Freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, free broadcasting of the spoken word and free entry from one country to another—these all include the same principle, namely, the sovereignty of the individual on the basis of equality. To exclude ideas, doctrines, expressions of thought and persons, whether by Press or by radio, or by the right of entry, simply because you disapprove of them, and to allow' freedom of expression and the right of entry only to those of whom you approve, is contrary to justice and violates the < command: “Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." j It is well that those who contend j for the freedom of the Press and the j radio consider the right of entry from one country to another impart i- ' ally, for it is certain that if the ! liberties of flic individual are abridged, curtailed, or relative lo the dictates and approval of others in one direction, then tils freedom of action in other fields of activities will most certainly he further curtailed and encroached upon. The conception of individual freedom is In its very essence a negative one—freedom from restraint by another’s will; freedom from violence and destruction; not freedom to do as one pleases in relation lo others; not freedom to curtail, obstruct and dictate; not freedom to lake whatever is in one s power; freedom excludes, and not includes, aggression, coercion and restraint. From these negative generalisations affirming the sovereignty of the individual naturally Hows lhe positive and constructive corollary reciprocity, which Implies individual Initiative, free contract and voluntary association In conclusion, the writer detests Nazi-isrn and Communism, but he stands for freedom in the absolute, so. according to all the canons of logic, Count von Luckner. or any othe’r person, should be absolutely free to enter any country without let or hindrance 1 am, etc., HARRY WOOD RUFFE Auckland. July 9.

TREATY OF WAITfNGI. (To the Editor.) Sir, —“Keri Keri" seeks Information regarding the translator of the Treaty of Waltangi. The following, gleaned from Brett’s “Early History of New Zealand,” may interest him: — Governor Hobson, writing on board H.M.S. Herald to Sir George Gipps, describing his initial meeting with the chiefs on February 5, 1840, says: “The business of the meeting commenced by my announcing to the chiefs the object of my mission. ... 1 explained to them in the fullest manner the effect that might be hoped to result from the measure. ... I then read the treaty, and In doing so dwelt on eaoh article and offered a few remarks explanatory of such passages as they might be supposed not to understand. Mr H. 'Williams, of the Church Missionary Society, did me the favour to interpret, and repeated In the native tongue, sentence by sentence, all I said.”—l am, eto., H. E. P ERWIN: (Hamilton, July 14.

REFUSE COLLECTION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Judging from the number of residences one passes In our town where the empty rubbish, tin Is to be seen standing just Inside the front gate, where the contractor Is in the habit of leaving it, one can only conclude that the householder Is not aware of the conditions of contract entered Into by the oounoil and tho contractor for the removal of refuse from the homes of the people. Briefly these conditions are— The contractor has undertaken to remove the dry refuse from eaoh house In the borough once every week In each year. The price tendered Is 12s per annum for each house. The householder must provide the receptacle for the refuse, whloh shall be kept in a convenient position near the back door of the house. The contractor on his part has undertaken to empty these receptacles, as above stated, and place them on the stand or where they are usually kept. It is nothing short of a scandal that women and aged people should be obliged to carry these drums or tins from the front gate to the back of their homes. Councillors must be aware of what Is going on, and it Is not at all to their credit that they have not taken definite action In this matter long ago.—l am, etc , RATEPAYER. Hamilton. July 13.

THRIFT. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In Friday’s Issue of the Waikato Times “Venator" writes, Inter alia: “After Mr Kenah’s disclaimer that poverty did not exist in the midst of plenty.” This Is the kind of methods that In a debating society would not be tolerated, and It Is conclusive evidence of the utter weakness of “Venator’s" case when he uses such tactics. Never have I said that poverty did not exist—on the contrary, I stated in my first letter: “Poverty there may be, but mostly brought on by laok of thrift and excess of pleasure dating right back to the days of youth.” It Is the statement of “Venator" that there was poverty In the midst of plenty, that I challenged, for there is not plenty—ln fact, the world to-day is perilously near lo a shortage of foodstuffs. Compared with New' Zealand, such countries as Germany, Russia, China, and Japan, are having difficulty, and are living on what we spoilt New Zealanders would oall a starvation diet. Nevertheless, New Zealand is going the right way for hard times. High wages, short hours, must reduce the standard of living, and if the farmers again got the low prices of a few years ago there would be 200,000 unemployed before one could think. We are living just now in a fools’ paradise. I would not trouble to refute “Venator’s" erroneous statements but for the fact that unthinking people may be misled.—l am, eto., W. P. KENAH. Raglan, July 12.