THE WAR CALL

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3142, 21 July 1917, Page 8

THE WAR CALL

PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL AVERAGE AND THE COUNTRY'S DUTY TO THE SOLDIER, (To the Editor.) Sir,—lu my letter of July 16, I promised to show why the principle that tho community snoulu udope in making provision for tho soldier and his dependants should be tuat of general averago ami not that of conscription, of weutth, if that ineaiß ,tuo confiscation of the capital of the country, which is simply "an accumulation of woalth (mostly in the form of machinery, plant, iood, clothing, and ,the like)/ created in the past and reseryed-rwith- the object of maintaining labour during ita eiiort to produce tor the future." Tho futility of sucli confiscation has boen already shown in your columns...' . .

What is. the principle of general average? Simply .this. If it is necessary in a storm to throw goods overboard to savo tho ship and cargo, tho owner ot the jettisoned goods does not bear tho whole loss, and the owners of the ship and of the rest of the cargo escape scot free. No. -.There is a general average contribution, everyono concerned, including the owner of tho jettisoned goods, bears his fair share of the loss iu proportion to the value of his interest iu the ship, freight, and goods.

That principle should apply in 1 war. We throw tho soldiers overboard to save the ship of State, but when they are lost we who are left safe and sound bear but an iufiuotisimal fraction of ilie loss of income suffered by them and their wives and children. How can this be fair, even if considered from a strictly mercantile point of view? Surely the ideal, system in a war should be that every soldier and his dependants—both while he is fighting and afterwards— should as nearly as possible be placed in the same position as if peace had continued, and that so much of the income of the rest of tho community should be taken as is necessary to bring that about.

Lgl me illustrate by a simple concrete case:— ! i A colony of farmern,' ench of whom rents his farm, just as their harvest is ripe, lea-rn that a band of natives intends to attack them. Some must stop behind lo Harvest tlio crops, others 20 out to surprise the «nomy. The farmers decided that one in every ten shall go to fight and the rest get in the harvest. They draw lots to decide who shall fight. Previous to doing so they discuss what is a fair arrangement to make for tho families of any soldiers who m.iy be killed or injured. They put all sentiment on one side for tho time being, and discuss the matter on a purely business' Basis, trying to arrive at some settlement which will be fair to all, seeing, that any one of them may be the soldier. One oi' them suggests that the rule of general average adopted by merchants might equally apply in the case of a man who gives his life to save the lives and tho property of others. , This appears to tho othors a fair proposition, and: they sit down to work" it out, taking a group of ten to simplify their calculations. They put it this way: "Bach of us. is'making an income. of £500 a year. Now the one who draws the lucky marble, if ho gets killed, will cease to make any income, and therefore wo who are left must all make a general average contribution towards the support of his wifo ond family. There will be only nine of us left, and the total of our aino incomes will therefore be .£4500. ' Divide this by ten so as to givo one share of the total to the. widow and children of our dead comrade, and each of us will have an income left of £450. Eacii of us then will have made a general average contribution of ,£SO to recoup the soldier's loss, and, as there are only nine left of us to earn an income instead -of ten, he will also have made a IO3S of £30. ■ "What do you say to that?" asks one.- "That»seems fair," says another. "Hold on," says a third. "Although the soldier is dead, ' his farm is still there, and it can bn sub-let . or , his interest sold, and the"'.. purchase money > invested, and there'will be some income derivable from that for the widow. Should we not take, that into account in considering the. general average, contribution? If we give the widow, and children .£450 a year and she can sublet the farm for ,£IOO a year, are we not making too great a sacrifice. I think that the .fair thing to do is by the,"total of all our contributions to make the income of tho widow and children, up to the ■£450, which would have been the soldier's share had he left no income producing property for his ! widow and children."' "Well, says a fourth, I .reckon that is the least we can do, and after all the burden spread over the whole of us won't bo heavy."

"And," says another, "we can lighten the burden still further. If wo insure the life of the soldier for a substantial sum or pay the premiums on any policy existing on his life the share cf the premium that each lof us will have to pay vrill bo small, and if no dies the policy money can bo invested and the ircorao produced by it be applied in redaction, of the general average contribution."

Eesolved, therefore, nem. n>n.: — 1. That lots bo drawn to decide which of the ten shall be the soldier.

2. That the remaining nine iiisure his life.. :,

,3. That in the, ovent of his death the policy moneys be invested and applied towards the support of lie wMow and children, that his farm be vorked by the widow and children, or eub-let or sold ■and the proceeds invested, apd! that the income of the remaining nine farmers be divided by ten, and 0 at one-tenth thereof, less the inqome of' the widow ami children from the farm and fr.vm the insurance moneys, be applied for the maintenance and support of the widow and children.

■1. That during tho fighting the other nine get .in his harvest cjhl .r.anage his farm; debiting the. income derived.therefrom with a reasonable charge for their labour.

Now, each man is on tho same footing. It dots not matter on whom 'lie iot falls. He knows that a. fair business _an angement has been made for ti ovision for those ho may lenvo behind.

■Is not our society very iike (his, and if the lot might fall on -any nan, would ho not eay tint , this 'arrangement was fairer than that, the widow cr.d children of the man who fell should receive only a fifth or, ,a. tenth of the inmme tint ho had previously eir.ned.' and. the ethers •perhaps earn. not less., but more/ than before because of his sacrifice? ' ' '

And if.somo of the community run no risk, suffer no harm, enjoy all tVoir comfort?, and have no anxiety, ;.< their general . avera?? contribution to be merely negligible? Surely this revolts Cue's'eenso of "fnir-play. ' • - • ■ . '

Ttjis true that matters ni'O a little more complicated in our society than in.-the surmosed siirnlc case, as> ve ;>ll 'hnvo inconips of different amount?. Put nppd that matte' , ? suppo=» thnf ten farmers '. hnvc-in'cnmes of different amounts, and. «"■ what they not:l(l,.<lo. Rupposo t]ii>. soldier has :... j>soo Four of ■ t)i3 others have .CWO ■

apiece .£I6OO Threo of tlw others have .€OOO apiece ~ ; dCISOO Two of the others have ,£SOO apiece _ ',£llOO Total .£SOOO If the soldier is "Killed we deduct hi?. £ '£M 'And there is left for distribution anions ten JMSOO 1 How would the farmers tear tlio loss? AVhy in proportion to their shares of the •£SOOO. (I have taken tho nearest fraction and neglected shillings ami I'tnco, which accounts for tho slight discrepancy liereiinder.) The soldier must bear one-tenth of tho loss (ifiSO). and his dependants would receive .£450.

'■' The four at -£100 would each bear, say, one-twelfth of the loss, four at M'l, equalling .filfiS, and would each receive JXB. Tho l7iree at .£6OO would raeli bear, say, one-eighth of the loss, three at .£(&), «:nallins .£189,' and would each receive JE537. ' • ' '• • ■ And tho two at JGSSO would each bear, Ra,Ti one-ninth of the loss, two at «f;55,

equalling ,£llO, and would each nceivo £i%.

If their incomes varied in future years tho proportions of the loss would vary, th'o soldier's estimated income fluctuating with the average fluctuation of nil tho incomes.

We adopt this principle of dealing with a ninn's income for tho time bcjiig in our incomo tax assessment, by vhich. a man pays upon his income from year to year. Why, then, could we not adopt some principle- of this kind in making provision, for our soldiers? Wo should perhaps have to make this limitation that those who had incomes or.ly jnet Kirgo enough to supnort themselves and th'eir families should be exempted from th'o general averago contributions, while those dependants who had over a certain income which enabled them to live not oiiiy in comfort, but in luxury, should not be entitled to participate in tho distrioution of the fund. Further, all dependants should rcceivo a certain minimum provision, no matter what the income di their breadwinner. Subject, perhaps, to Hies,' limitations, then we should deal with the incomes of the community on the lines of the ton formers, n'-iing tho necessary general averago contribution by a special graduated income tax, earmarked as The ""Provision for Soldiers and their Dependants Graduated Income Tax," and applied for that purpose only. I am a lawyer, and not an actnary or accountant, and therefore I cannot work out tho scheme in detail, but feeing that wo have the principle of the graduated income tax well established, I do not see why the elaboration of such a scheme should bafflo our Government Actuary and our Commissioner of Taxes. The country would not be ruined in any way. All that it would mean would bo that for a period of years until the vtfdow had died and the children crown up, those of us who had benefited by the soldier's sacrifice would havo to K'ake our sacrifice, and live more economically and more like the soldiers' widows and children. ■At present the hoot is on the other foot. It is the soldier who first sacrifices his life, and then the widow and children who make a further sacrifice in giving up the greater part of the income that they enjoyed during his life, while wo who have made no .sacrifice, give a beggarly fraction of our income, and declare that the country would be ruined if we gavo more. And all the while we are spending money more extravagantly than ever on races and totalizators,, pictures, and publichouses, marblo bars, motor-cars, hats, Furs, dress, and luxuries of :ill kinds. A compulsory era of thrift would do us itn a world of good. And tho sacrifice called for from tlie rest of the community would, if proper foresight lad been exercised by the Government, havo been much reduced.by tbo adoption at tre bo-, ginning of the war of a proper insurance scheme such as emanated from Mr. James Macintosh, and was suggested by the War League to the Prime Minister. Under this schemo the life of every soldier would have been insured before he left, and tho premiums also raised bv the same graduated income tax. And in another respect the sacrifico upon the community would not bo so great a3 it appears, because a large number of tho soldiers killed have no dependants to bo provided for. But whatever the sacrifice might be, it is the community's duty to mako it, no matter what it costs. I say the community, because in the minds of some, the State is a nebulous body outside of us, whereas it simply consists of the total of us individuals. And this sacrifice would ensure to Clio benefit of the country. It would tend to'the leading of the simpler life, to economy and thrift. It would make the whole of the people feel that they were hearing their fair share of the "burden of the war, and help to destroy that spirit, which is so widespread, and which was manifested the other day by our legislators when they rejected tho Hon. G. AV. Russell's wellconcetv'ed scheme for economy in Hansard, viz., "I am prepared to sacrifice the last of my brother'e blood, the last euilling of his nniey, bulj 'hands off' my Body and my purse." There are some who jibe at the Second Division League for trying to make a bargain as to provision for their irives and 1 children before their turn comes to go to the trenches'. The 6hame is not on the Second Division that they should ask that thoso who are near and dear to them should be adequately provided for by the State, the shaino is on the country, on the Legislature, on the. Government that the league should need to do it. What provision has the State mado for flle soldier and his dependants in the past? Ask the veterans of the Maori Wars!. And. what will it do when the war is over, and each constituency clamours for roads and bridges and schools and post offices and railway stations? No; as in.the past each improvement in tho pensions and in separation allowances has been due to the force of public opinion, to the fact that the reform is demanded by people whose votes count, so let the demand be made now by every fair-minded man and every fairminded woman in.the country that Parliament, shall make such provision this session before ' the war closes that no future Parliament dare set nside or diminish. The Government in the long run reflects our sentiments, and if we are indifferent whether the provision for soldiers and their' dependants is increased or not, or if we remain inarticulate and inactive, then the blame n'ust Test on our shoulders, not on that of the Government.—l am, etc., ■ \ ' H. P. VON HAAST. P.S.—The above ocheme is worked out on a purely business basis, but seeing what the soldier suffers in mind and [ body, and that no compensation, however generous, can recompense his relatives for his loss, tho rest of the community' might well be expected to bear not only its proportionate share of his loss of income, but the whole of it.