PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 129, Issue 21480, 23 July 1941, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS “STICK TO FACTS" (To the Editor) Sir, —Mr Edmonds’' last letter proves nothing. No statement regarding the authorship of the “eating grass” story by any Ngaruawahia worker, or a regiment of them, would prove that the statement was ever really made, but only that this particular piece of propaganda had been 1 widely disseminated. One does not j need the intellect of a Lord High | Chancellor to see that. The rest of the letter is irrelevant to the point at issue.—l am, etc., A. WARBURTON. Ngaruawahia, July 17.

YOUTH MOVEMENT

(To the Editor) Sir,—“A.E.l’s” letter on youth matters is of interest and moment and should be welcomed. May I suggest that something of what he desires may be found in the programme of the Physical Welfare and Recreation Branch of the Internal Affairs Department, set up just prior tc the outbreak of war. There is a i document setting out the aims of this department, and the physical welfare officers appointed under the scheme are available if inquiries from the public are made at their offices.—l am, etc , SOPHIA R. DE LA MARE. Hamilton, July 22.

RETURNED SOLDIER BALLOTS

(To the Editor) Sir,—l wish to endorse the action of the Whangarei R.S.A. in requesting the Dominion executive to request the Government to exempt all returned soldiers from the territorial ballot. As a balloted returned soldier at present serving three months in a territorial camp I am in a position to see how these men stand up to the rigorous training at present being carried out by the territorial forces. They would be a great deal more use to the country in their civil occupations. Men between the ages of 43 and 45 years cannot be expected to foot it with the young bloods of 19 and 20. Further, living in tents in midwinter, surrounded by anything up to 14 degrees of frost and fog, is rigorous enough for young men, let alone middle-aged returned soldiers who have already done their share.— I am, etc., EX-DIGGER.

FUTURE OF HOME GUARD

(To the Editor) Sir, —I would like to join with “ Citizen Soldiers ” in protesting against the idea of placing the Home Guard under Army control. No one has yet presented a sound reason why this should be done, and it must not be forgotten that the Army could have built its own Home Guard if it had appreciated the need for this form of defence. As it is, the Home Guard has been built from nothing solely by the enthusiasm of its men and the hard work of its officers, while all the organisation expenses have been paid, not by the Army but by the local bodies. On what possible grounds can the freedom of the Home Guard to run its own affairs be taken away? Is it suggested that Army officers now know more about how the Home Guard should be run than the officers who, at great personal sacrifice to themselves and without pay, have made the Home Guard? No, there is nothing wrong with the control of the Home Guard, and the only thing holding it back is that local bodies have been left to carry the expense. Is it not time that the public demanded that the State should subsidise the local bodies in just the same way as it subsidise? them to build roads? After all, the building of roads and the building of the Home Guard have much in common—it must be done everywhere at the same time and it must suit local conditions. Therefore, our central organisation in Wellington, be it Public Works Department or Army, cannot do the job as efficiently as tne men on the spot. Since the survival of New Zealand may one day depend upon the efficiency of its Home Guard, this proposal to rob the Home Guard and its officers of their freedom to organise their own way cannot be dismissed lightly.—l am, etc., FREE CITIZEN SOLDIER Hamilton, July 21.