The Daily News. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1917. THE SECOND DIVISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 July 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1917. THE SECOND DIVISION.

The Wellington Post recently devoted an artict u, triu-isinjr the demands of the recent Second Division conference in respect of separation allowances. Inter alia, it stated:—

Ihe conference, after full deliberation, , suggested that, in addition to the pay of the- soldier of 5s per day. separation allowances should be granted of (is a day to the wife and Is fid a day for each ~child, so that a man with, say a wife and Ave children would receive £lj as (Id a week in pay and separation allowances be"ides bis keep free of charge, while a man with a wife only would get £3 17s a week and his keep. Whether the Conference desired that special financial assistance up to £2 per week in respect of payment of rent, life insurance premiums, etc., should be given in addition, it did not make clear. Taking the former, then, as representing its full demands, the Conference advocates a system under which a man who was earning £:) a week or less in civil life should get £(! !)s 6d a week and his keep, because lie has a wife and five children, while another man who was earning £1(1 a week before he won! the King's uniform is reduced to £3 17s and his keep because he has a. wife only. It is n basis of payment in fact, on the number of children—a 'principle which prevails in no other walk of life. Is that sound? We think the Conference would have been belter advised to have fixed minimum and maximum rates according to the soldier's pre-servieo earnings, thus ensuvinu' that their homes will be kept going in as near their usual condition as the .State can afford while they, the breadwinners, are away lighting. Our contemporary cites the case of a man with five children, but this is hardly fair. It should take a more average case, say that of a man with two or three children. Only six weet;s ago the Post said:—

"It is only in the cases of widows with large families that the New Zealand scale increasingly overshadows the British rates, but this from the point of view of involving the Dominion in 'heavy financial expenditure is more apparent than real. This is evident when it is explained that the New Zealand Government up to the present has, with the exception of one or two brief intervals, consistently forbidden the acceptance of other than single men and men with more than three children for active service. The result is that the higher New Zealand rates are only payable in a very small number of cases, and consequently cannot trouble the Finance Minister much."

The Post, therefore, supplies its own answer to its later statement regarding the Kt;.te\- liability in the case of men with largo families. It is truly a liability inoi'j apparent than real. The Post, too, inferentially eredits the family with both the husband's pay and the separation allowances. Now, it wou'u be just as reasonable to say to a commercial

traveller that his expenses should form part of his salary, for a soldier's pay is required mainly for the purchase of needs. Tiie Defence Department admit that no : oidier can get along with loss than -is i day ior expenses, and soldiers returned .Min the front agree that double that

:mount is required in France, so that i lie soldier's pay could very well be left I oi:fc of the calculation. (But supposing | lie is able to leave 2s a day from his pay to supplement the separation allowances to his wife and children, and the League's demand for an increase in those allowances from Is a day for wives I and 9d for children to Os ana Is Od respectively were acceded to, we arrive at this position in the case of the man with two children:—Two shillings from soldier's pay. Os wife's allowance, 3s lor the two children—a total of lis per Jay, or £3 17s per week. Now, the average artisan's wages before the war was £3 per week. In threo years the tliree pounds has fallen in purchasing value by 10s fid (accepting the Übor Do" partnients figures) so that should the family receive the £3 17s claimed by ; Ihc League they will not be actually in !a. good a position as they were 'before tho war. There will certainly be one mouth less to feed and one man less to j clothe, but against this the family will jj be without the services of trie husband about the place, his help and guidance. Keckoning. however, without this factor, and accepting that the family would be, say, Us better off by the absence of the breadwinner, is it not desirable that there should be a nest-egg available . when he returns to assist him in making a fresh start? Jn any case, the man •nil be handicapped in some way. Few turn in as fit a condition as they were on leaving, and surely the State can afford to treat liberally the men who sacrifice not only their health but their material prospects. For the year ending June last, our exports were valued at a few pounds short of thirty-one millions; lying in store awaiting shipment was another eight millions' .worth of produce, with a half-year's gold exports not included; a total sum of forty millions. For the three years before the war the exports averaged twenty-one millions. In other words, the value of or exports has practically doubled as a direct result of the war. The cost of production, freight, etc., has increased, it is true, but tiie net increase in the value of our exports has been tremendous, and no country in the world is in a position to treat its soldiers and their dependents more liberally than we are. And seeing that the making of this huge extra sum is rendered possible by the service and sacrifice of the men at tho front—indeed a direct result of their service and sacrifice—who is more entitled to share the profit? New Zealand's first duty is to see that the men going to tho front and their dependents are fully provided for. That they are not at present is a serious reflection upon the administrative capacity of the Government, for without doubt the public wants to do its duty by its fighting men, only requiring the lead that has so far been conspicuous by its absence. In regard to the adop tion of the differential principle in re-

sped, to separation allowances, much can be said in favor of the Post's contention, but it has to be remembered that allowances are given only during the service of the soldier, which may he of brief duration. It is entirely different in the case of the incapacitated, or 'partially incapacitated, soldier, when pensions are permanently iixed, and hero differentiation according to pre-war conditions of living is entirely justified.