Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 30, 27 September 1946, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

N.Z. CONDITIpNS Sir, —After reading Mr Ditchfield’s letter in last week’s ‘Beacon’ I wondered how long he had lived in New Zealand and I would like to point outto him that it is not only the Labour Government which has made this the most wonderful country to live in today. I arrived here 37 yeai's ago and it was a pretty good country then and we still managed to pay off and own our homes and got three good meals a day. We also managed to bring up our families (which were a. trifle larger than those of today) without any help from the Government. True, in the Old Country things were tougher, especially in a case where there was no father, but is the widow’s lot and rosy in any country ? Perhaps the spldiers widows here can answer that one. Yes I admit there _is ,a lot to be done, for the workers of Britain and hope the La- J bour Government does all it has promised for them. But we out here have always lived under good conditions. Unions hadn’t such a sway then and are alright, but should'not be allowed to run the country as they try to do now. My husband in the old days earned £3 17s per week (17s was rent) which was as good as £7 in spending power of today. Although we had no finance behind us, and no thoughts of a 40-hour week, in a few years we started a little business of his own, because he was willing to work to that end and before very long after that had put a deposit on his own house. ,In those days if we did manage a banking account, the Government did not then filtch a part of it each year and call it unearned inco'me. It was your ow;n, to do what you liked with and no questions asked. So why all this talk of what the Labour Government has done for us? After all we do pay for it. Yes New Zealand credit is good and our debts are paid overseas, ‘ but look what markets we have had and can export everything'we can spare not having to compete with' countries which were either devastated or occupied by the enemy! Did any other Government have such a chance or such a rich harvest when everybody is earning such a lot; husband and wife as well, owing to long wartime hours. We don’t want all this ‘red tape’ in this young country, “can’t do this; can’t do that” tactics. It seems to me that most people who favour the Labour Government are the old ones, lots from the Old Country, who just sit back and call the tune, while we middle-aged ones pay the piper, and the young folks, who may change their ideas, when they are old enough to pay for them. This harping on the ‘slump’ is another annoyance. Didn’t it also come to Australia, South Africa, Britain and America. Not only New Zealand. It was the direct result of the war and the Labour Government won’t be able to stop another one, should those conditions arise‘again, which I for one hope won’t. They also have a grudge against private enterprise. Who built all Government houses here and hundreds of others, but private enterprise, and they are calling out for private, enterprise in Britain today. They also have a grudge against banks, who was it, might I ask, who financed the farmer and saw him through bad seasons, also the small business man who started with an overdraft also lent by Banks. So Mr Ditchfield those “stand and deliver tactics” might be alright for Britain but this is a Colony we don’t want all that here, having never had to put up with Old Country conditions. If a man is willing to work he doesn’t want such a benevolent Government to pamper him. Yours etc., ANOTHER POMMIE.

MALONEY ANTI-RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN

Sir, —In the Beacon for 18th September the anti-Socialist propagandist, this time signing his letter “Democrat” declares that Russia is a Fascist State which is a flat contradiction of fact. As usual he gives no proof of his statement, but in modern propaganda it is the frequent repetition of statements that counts—not their truth, hence all this huey’ about Socialism, the evils of planning etc. As he quotes Mr Maloney it may be as well to give some evidence of his unreliability.

In a protest against his untruthful articles, Professor R. M, Crawford has written: During my own service with the Australian Legation in the Soviet Union, I did acquire an ability to talk to the Russian people in their own tongue. I got to know some of them intimately to the point that we discussed freely their experiences and their feelings. The result of such experience, allied with some knowledge of Russian history was a general, impression quite contrary to that given by Mr Maloney’s articles. This last war came as a grand climax of strain. The Soviet peoples took terrific punishment, and could not have survived it victorious if Mr Maloney’s picture were anywhere near the truth.

I believe that Mr Maloney’s articles are misleading, and contribute not to understanding but to misunderstanding. If his concern is less with Russia than with political controversy here at home it is dangerous to use for local ends weapons so damaging to international peace. Mr W. Slater, the first Australian Minister to Russia writes: “I do not hesitate to express general agreement with Professor Crawford’s observations.”

Miss Irene Saxby, Official Archivist at the Australian Legation writes: “I returned to Sydney last year after spending ten years in Moscow. I want to make it public that I am in complete disagreementwith Mr Maloney’s views and consider that he is putting before the Australian people a wildly distorted picture of life and conditions in that country.” She goes on to say that if he was telling the truth about the prices of food and clothing “the Russian people would be extinct by this.” Miss Saxby is the lady who, “Observer” said, had to contradict Mr Maloney because she was stillin Russia. That bit of bluff was just as accurate as all this stuff about the destruction of political freedom under Socialism in Russia, Poland, - etc. When did they have political freedom before they moved toward Socialism? It is most necessary in this matter, as in everything else, to make sure that the information we accept come ;from reliable sources, and there are plenty of British, authorities of good repute who give ’ sound information. V . . 1 Yours etc.,

C. J. HALLETT.

WALL STREET CONDEMNED!

Sir,—President Roosevelt, though he did not, mention Wall Street,, expressed himself thus: “I believe in the sacredness of private property, which means, I do not believe that it should be subject to the ruthless manipulation of professional gamblers in the stock market, and in the corporate system. I share the general complaint against regimentation; I dislike it, not only when it is carried out by an informal group; amounting to an economic Government of the United States, but also when it is done by the- Government of the United States itself. I believe that the industrial system is made for man not man for an industrial State! I do not believe that, in that name, that sacred word “Individualism” that a few powerful ‘interests’ should be permitted to make industrial cannon fodder of the lives of the people, and we cannot allow our economic life to be controlled by that small group of men, whose chief outlook upon the social welfare, is tinctured by the fact that they can make huge profits from lending money, and the marketing of securities, these evils which have sgrown out of the holding companies, which must be corrected if we are to square a way-for sound progress in the many lines of industry.” It is quite evident that President Roosevelt knew who were .bringing pressure to bear on the American people, and it is the same group who are bringing pressure to bear on the British people through their Socialist Government. To the Wall Street financier a ‘country’ is just something on which to base a mortgage; hence a country whose National Debt is not as large as is consistant with security is an object of solicitude to international finance. For the reason if no other; that the efforts of this financial group are directed in the obstruction of the payments of reparations, the loan to Britain being merely a “political weapon” for the control of. British policy. When the Bretton Woods agreement and the U.S. loan was being forced through the House of Lords, Lord Beaverbrook drew attention to the coalition of the bankers and the Socialist against British interests.

Yours etc., W. BRADSHAW.