MR HAMILTON’S ADDRESS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 215, 11 August 1937, Page 2

MR HAMILTON’S ADDRESS.

(To the Editor.). Sir, —Being absent when Mr Hamilton expressed his political views to the Palmerston North electors, I made it my business to read the report ol his meeting in the Press. Mr Hamilton is entitled to hie opinions, but what is the baso of them?' What are they built on? Mr Hamilton states that the Government has adopted a new philosophy, viz., that spending is better than saving. I agree with that new reasoning, and not without due consideration of all aspects of "it. the world to-day is in such a chaotic state that until electors do a little thinking for themselves instead of letting others do it for them chaos will never be converted to order. My thoughts on tho now philosophy arc as follow: That circulating money is the lifebread of commerce, frozen capital its death. A business man keeps a shop for spenders, not savers. If money was circulated properly and not hoarded the stocks in shops and warehouses would he turned over much more quickly than at present, with more employment in replacement, ’I he hungry man is no good to tho food merchant nor tho ragged to the clothier. I think any business man will agree that that is common-sense. What is it that the business man is always looking for? Turnover. What does he advertise for? Turnover. How can he get it? By liquid cash, not frozen cash. As for saving for old age, if science was applied sensibly and unselfishly there would be no necessity. A small weekly contribution from those not otherwise provided for would safeguard the future of the people and relieve the taxpayers of a large charitable aid bill, the result of a faulty social system. The birds of the air and the beasts of the field do not save for old age. Wliy God’s highest creations, man and woman? How many people save by depriving themselves of absolute necessities? No. Moss covered theories must, with the march of time, give way to modern thought. Mr Hamilton stated that lie stood four square for democracy. I don’t know his definition of democracy, but 1 would point out that a previous Government appointed a gentleman to tho Ministry who was rejected by the electors and that his Government extended its life in Parliament without the democratic eonsent of the electors. Is that the type of democracy that Mr Hamilton stands four square for? Using his own words, it is making a farce of democracy. Mr Hamilton exhorts us to live within our income, which is reasonable advice lor those that have a fair income, hut what of those who have none? Are they to starve? What science has displaced by machinery, science will have to replace, and that can only be done by placing humanity and its needs first, and money a secondary consideration. In this I do not wish to bq misunderstood. 1 am not advocating a workless age: far from it. It would lie monstrous; I am simply emphasising the point that nature never intended that people, who through no fault of their own are workless, should be ioodIcss and insufficiently clad. Mr Hamilton complains that some of tho Labour members were sitting in the House by a minority vote. Wore they not elected by the same system that Mr Hamilton’s party .were elected by? Has he ever complained when members of bis party were elected on a minority vote? Anyway, who abolished the second ballot which ensured a majority vote? Mr Hamilton states that lie believes in the best wages that industry can afford. Who, in Mr Hamilton's opinion, may I ask. should he tlie judge as to what industry can afford? The Arbitration Court used to be. Wily did Mr Hamilton’s Government practically abolish it? There have been and are to-day many white employers who require no law to force them to treat their employees justly. (Many have never made the minimum wage the maximum.) But law is necessary to protect these men from the unfair competition of those who do not. hut grow wealthy on the sweat shops of misery. Despite Mr Hamilton’s inference that the Labour Party have gained votes by broken promises (and I don’t support tho inference) the fact remains that the Labour Party have enacted more humane legislation during their short tenstire of office than the Conservative Party have during the whole of their existence. Now I come to the sensational statement bv Mr Hamilton, that the individual should be superior to the State. I trust he will remember that when farmers, orehardists, shipping concerns and others ask for Government subsidies, and 1 don’t say they should not have them, because I believe in the Government assisting any decent industry which will give employment to get a footing in _ Now Zealand, especially secondary industries which will absorb primary products. The fallacy of Mr Hamilton’s individualism being superior to the I State is apparent in view of the fact that the Press recently announced that the two mammoth liners that are to be constructed as competitors to the Mat* son Lino are to be jointly paid for by Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Why don’t individuals do it, Mr Hamilton? Mr Hamilton asks what would happen if prices fell. Well, we can console ourselves with the fact that nothing worse could happen than what happened during bis Government’s reign when the depression, which his Government could not be held responsible for. was accentuated by his Government in still further reducing tho spending power of the people. thus creating more unemployed and bankruptcy. Tlie proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. Is it not a inost noticeable fact that during'the reign of Conservatism in New Zealand instead of New Zealand gaining population it was losing it, emigration exceeding immigration. Why? I am, ' U W. F. CUTLER. 39 Ada Street, Palmerston North.