CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 May 1918, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

KAPONGA SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE. To the Editor. Sir, —Fve been wailing for someone to write to you regarding the resolution passed by the Kaponga Second Division League the other day, on the question of allowances. The fact that I don't wish a false impression to reinr.in is my excuse for writing this. In the first place, let me explain that the meeting was not a representative one. It was attended by only a handful of men, nearly all of whom are ineligible for service, and who, therefore, are not vitally affected by what the Government pay in the way of i wives' separation allowances. But those of us who are being called up view this matter in quite a different light. We are absolutely in accord with the resolutions passed by Second Division reservists throughout the length and breadth of New Zealand during the past few weeks on the question of wives' allowances. To suggest that the present rate is adequate, as our small coterie did here the other night, is to betray ignorance of the whole question, and a lack of sympathy with the legitimate demands of married soldiers. This is how I look at it. A and B are in the same line of business in the same town, and are in class B of the Second Division reserve. Both, say, are earning £5 a week. A has kept himself fit, gets past the- doctors, and enters camp, and goes to the war. B, by accident or carelessness, is unfit. He stays behind. How are the two families going to fare? At present the wife of A gets £1 la a week for herself and 10s Gd for her child, plus £1 Is which the Government demands the soldier shall leave behind from his pay for her support; a total of £2 12s 6d. Can she keep the house going, the youngster's education up (especially if it is at a secondary school), and live decently on that at a time when we are told by the Labor Department that the purchasing value of the pound is now only 13s compared to what it was three or four years ago? Now, B stops behind, sees to the home and the welfare of the wife and child, and actually benefits by the absence of A. He does not risk "his health or life, or undergo any hardship whatever. He is able to live just as well as ever he did; perhaps better. He gets his £5; A's wife gets her £2 12s 6d; B. makes no sacrifice—that is left for the wife of the soldier. Is that right or equitable? We can't get equality in war, for war is fundamentally unjust and wrong, but surely we can see that there is some effort made to equalise the sacrifices. I have taken no interest in the Second Division movement in the past, but I intend to do so in the future, for they are working on the right lines. They say pay the women Gs a day and let the soldier do vvJmt he thinks best with his own pay, the same as the single soldier. If lie can put aside for future requirements any of his pay, well, why begrudge him? Is he not entitled to it? Is it not in the interests of the country that the soldier should be self-reliant and independent of help from the Government when he returns—if he ever does? The Second ,Division, I notice, stresses the point that no man on his return can take up his old job or business where he left off, and that his health will for months, perhaps years, be impaired by the trials suffered at the front. That is the experience of all who have returned, and cannot be gainsaid. Now A could leave his wife and child without misgiving on the financial score if she had Gs a day, plus what he could spare from his pay. Then they would not have to sell out and take lodgings, and generally play second fiddle to the wife and child of 11. Anyhow, why should they? Really, if merit counted, she would be entitled to more consideration than B's family. It is quite wrong to condemn a family to hardship because the breadwinner is called up for active service. It would be different if B were asked to make some sacrifice. But lie is not. He is actually free to make more money and provide better for tho welfare of his own family. As for financial assistance, that is too uncertain a quantity, as has been proved times without number. Cut it out if you can, and let the man know what he is entitled to as a right, and not have to go begging to a board or the Government. In conclusion, I would like to suggest that if tho Kaponga tailors of Tooley Street are really interested in the welfare of Second Division reservists, they should immediately call a public meeting gf them, and invite some o£tho leaders of the movement in other parts of Taranaki to attend, and have the matters ventilated. An expression of opinion from such a meeting would, I venture to think, be slightly different from the extraordinary motion that was published as emanating from the reservists of the district, when, as a matter of fact, it was only the opinion of one or two men who have not a chance of being ordered into the trenches, leaving their wives and children to the tender mercies of the Government.—l am, etc., CLASS C. Kaponga, May 10.