The Farmers and The Navy.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 188, 4 July 1916, Page 2

The Farmers and The Navy.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l have been luoking for an Editor to advance some arguments showing why the Farmers' Union Executive are wrong in the stand tbey have taken on this question. Until 1 read the sab-editorial in yuur issue of Jane 30th I have

looked in vain. They all confine themselves to telling the farmers bow much tbey owe to the Navy, and how they have a dut; to perform in helping to provide for the widows and orphans of the brave sailormen who have fallen, just as if we did not reilise all this equally as well as our critics. You ask why, when we bave collected

funds for the Belgians, Servians and Kuasians, we should not do the same for the dependents of tbe men of our Navy. Our anwser is that we piaca the claims of our Navy on a higher plane than mere charity. The Belgians, Servians and Kußsians had no special claim upon us, other than the claims of common humanity, and in common with other nations we recognised

those claims and responded in the only way we could respond by collecting voluntary subscriptions. But the men of the Navy are our own men, and they have taken their lives in their hands in our service. We on our part are solemnly bound to do our duty to tbem and their dependents and are we doing our duty it we compel them to ask as a charity that which they should have is a right 7 Surely not! You extol the virtues of charity both for the giver and the receiver, and you are no doubt quite correct, but with certain limitations. There should be no room or occasion tor charity in this matter, and we have no right to put the widows and orphans in that position. Our duty lies clear before us. The British Navy is tbe one line of defence which has stood between us and certain destruction and we must see to it that this Dominion takes its fair share in all that pertains to it.—l am, etc., A. A. ROSS, I'rovincial President N Z.F.U. le Kauwhata, [Ud July, lUlti. [Mr Koss ovcrlonks the fact that the North Sea Belief Fund is designed to supplement pensions made by tbe Imperial Government instead of being a substitute lor the same. Government allowances are necessarily on a comparatively small ?cale, and if Mr Koss' argumsnts hold good in reepect of donations being sougbt to belp the dependents of tbe brave men lost in tbe North Sea battle he must similarly take objection to tbe patriotic funds rained in the Dominion for the benefit of the dependents of New Zealand soldiers who have fallen in the war.—Editor.!.