WAR GRATUITY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 202, 21 May 1919, Page 8

WAR GRATUITY

_: k AND RETROSPECTIVE ALLOWANCES INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. The ireneral secretary (Mr. Douglns. Seymour) of the Now Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association supplies the following correspondence which has pa6sed between the association and the Minister of Defence (Sir James Allen) in connection with the association's claims for war gratuities and'retrospective allowances. Mr. Seymour points out that the obvious reason lor the more favourable scale of gratuity to married men proposed by the Minister of Defence was to offer some kind of compensation for his refusal to acknowledge the right of the children to retrospective allowances. This correspondence speaks for itself. To tho Hon. the .Minister of Defence. Dear Sir,—ln reference to the allocation of the gratuity allowance which you undertook to communicate to my executive prior to its final adoption, 1 am instructed to notify you that my executive is of opinion that no distinction should be made in the amount of gratuity payable to married and single men respectively. In support of this statement I would point out that in tho view of the executive tho allowances granted to married men are really a form of additional pay, and, further, generally speaking, the single men have borne the brunt of war service. We trust that you will be able to incorporate this recommendation in the proposals which are being prerared.—Yours, etc. , (Sgd.'i DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, Gen. Secretary, N.Z.R.S.A. To General Secretary N.Z.K.S.A. Dear Sir,—l am in receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., in which you inform me that your executive has instructed you to notify me that it is of opinion that no distinction should be made in the amount of gratuity payable to married and single men respectively. In reply I have to state that I find it difficult to discover any arguments _ in favour of vour conclusion.—Yours faithfullj,

(Sgd.) J. ALLEN, Minister of Defence. To the Hon. Minister of Defence.

Sir,—l am in receipt of your letter of April ill in reference to the proposal of mv association that in the allocation of tho gratuity no distinction should be made between married and single men. As you state that you find it difficult to discovor any arguments m favour of tho conclusion arrived at by my executive, I can only regret thai thoso put forward in my letter did not attract your attention, and thorei'oro wish to recapitulate them. V

In view of tho fact that of tho total Expeditionary Force of some Kitl.OOO men only somo 27,000 were married; no one 1 will disputo the statement that, generally speaking, tho brunt of the struggle has fallen on the single men. Not only have tho siugle men constituted the overwhelming majority of iho force in point of numbers, but owing to tho fact that they were summoned first their average period of service and tho incidence of casualties among thorn must also be considerably greater than those of married men. It is not irrelevant to add that onlv' some 8000 married men were volunteers prior to the operation of tho Conscription Act. ...■■_■

Jly second point was that separation allowances to wives and children are a form of additional pay, the scale of which you apparently regard as inadequate in view of your proposed higher scale for married men. It is true that you have refused to apply the'amended scale of children's allowances retrospectively, and that you kavo.6een no' reasons which would induce you to bo as generous to tho children' of tho volunteer as to those of the consoript, but the views of my association—and tho reasons for them—on this point are already wellknown to you, and my association is not disposed to approve of a gratuity distinction in favour of married men as a substitute for an indubitable right.

If you are not prepared io admit that the- considerations to which I havo referred are suHiciently weighty to overrule this argument in favour of your proposal would you kindly advise mo as to the nature of tho latter.—Yours, etc., (SKd.) DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, Gen. Secretary, N.Z.R.S.A.' To the Gen. Secretary, N.Z.R.S.A. • Dear Sir-In reply to your letter of the 7th inst. I have to say that, though vour arguments did attract my attention they did not appeal to my judgmeutYours, etc., ■ (Sgd.) J. ALLEN, Minister of Defence. To tho Hon. Minister of Defence. Dear Sir,—l am in receipt of your letter of tho 10th inst. referring to mine of tho 7th inst. on tho subject of gratuity, and stating that the arguments in my letter did not appeal lo your judgment. , ~ ~,., . My executive notes that tho validity ot its reasoning is not disputed. Iu reference to the suggestion in niy letter that tho reasons in support, of the Department's proposal should be disclosed, my executive regrets exceedingly that this course, which would havo enabled the question to be argued on its merits, has similarly not appealed to your judgment, and trusts that it may not be thought ungenerous if it has difficulty in conceiving of any sound reasons -other than tho absence of defensible grounds-for the position you ,have adopted.—Yours, etc., (Sgd.) DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, ' Gen. Secretary, N.Z.R.S.A. Dated May 20, 1919.