PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19903, 4 June 1936, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

AS expressed by correspondents. \\'hose letters are welcome, but 901‘ whose Views we have no responsiblllty. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It, is essential that anonymous wruers enclose thelr prnper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is corripli"s \\‘ilh, their letters will not. appear.

FAIR RENTB. (To the Editor.) Sin—During the depression many people who had a house to let re—duced the rent because the tenant was in diillculties. it meant a sacriiiae on the part of the owner, but it was a fair thing to do, and it was done. But it was fully understood that when things improved the rent would be restored to its former level. That will now be impossible. unless the owner takes the matter before a magistrate. The Government is de—termined that the occupier shall have all the benefits of higher wages and shorter hours, but the man who put his savings into a property must ex—pect nothing. This is class legisla—tion, and it marks the end or private building for letting purposes.—l am, etc.. SMALL OWNER. Hamilton, June 3. WAR EXPENDITURE. (To the Editor.) Slr,—Wouid Mr Young please let readers of the Times know where “Finance" is providing loans for ex—penditure on armaments—that is, in such a. way as to improve, tempo—rarily. the position of producers in this country?—l am, etci, J. CALSHORE. Hamilton, June 3. THE FREE CHURCHES. (To the Editor.) Sin—Your correspondents “Anglican" and "Ex-Imperial Army" are entirely in character. The one relies on the King's religion, the other on the King‘s Regulations. and they both fail to observe that matters statutory and regulatory are the legitimate subjects of change. My own fundamental objection to the procedure in question ‘is that matters of religion are not property subject to regimentatlon. either by statute or by regulation. it is rather unkind ot‘ “Ex-Imperial ‘Army" to remind me that I possibly ‘am. militarily speaking, a member of In sect. In extenuation. not in justiilcation. I can only say that it was a condition of enlistment. May I ask “'Ex-lmperiai Army" to tell me whether under King‘s Regulations I shall lever be able, while still remaining “trusty and well—beloved," to cease to belong to or to change my “sect"?— I am, etc., F. A. DE LA MARE. Hamilton, June 2. THE RAILWAY CROSSING. (To the Editor.) Sir,——l thing "Crossing's" letter has put the whole tramo problem of Hamilton very clearly. I wonder if the railway authorities could be persuaded to prepare estimates of the coat of sinking the line under Victoria Street and give an idea as to the general practicability, or have they already done so? Who prepared the railway plans recently discussed by the Borough Council in committee, and why is the public kept in ignorance or the result thereof? This idea of sinking the line, if carried out. would settle the tramc problem in Hamilton for all time. \Vould it not be better business to spend the money it is proposed to spend on Garden Place removal to help consummate this new idea and then make a bargain with the railway authorities for that tine area of tint land at pre—sent occupied by the Hamilton goods shed and sidings? \\'hat a splendid site for a civic square, parking area and town hall for Hamilton. The railway has got to go under Victoria Street eventually, so why not now‘.’— ‘ i am, eic., LOOKING FORWARD. 1 Hamilton, June 3. IN ALBERTA. (To the Editor.) Sin—ln reply to “Cannuck” I would remind him of a parable in the New Testament regarding wheat and tares. The good man sowed wheat; in the night the enemy sowed tares, the result not being good for the wheat. Such is the position in Alberta. The good seed of Social Credit was sown. the seed bore fruit at the election, but the bankers sowed the tares, and thus we have the result. ,

“Gunnuck” is wrong when he states ”that the authorities at Ottawa did not step in. as alleged, and takechux‘ge." That is exactly what they did do, and choked the good seed—only for a firm, however. How can there be complele failure when the prin—ciples have not been put into oper—alluu?

The crux of the whole of “Cannuck's" argument falls to the ground when he says: “I have. been luld." \\'h)’ did the serial l'l'L‘llilul'S I'N‘usn Iu assist, the Government statistician In New Suulll \\'ulvs'.’ Because Hwy know that such assislum'u \\uuhl nu! lm arcuplvd. Yuur «'urrcslmmlunl shnulll uhlnin full inful'muliun from the right quarters before he L'l'ilil'ifit"' uml rundomns Mum'lhln‘; upun \\'hirll h - hus only obtained the View 01‘ um: sizlv. and that [he I'llt‘lxly‘s sixlo. ’l‘nv Douglas Social (Ix-mm .\luvmncnl in .\lhm'h did 1m! sido stop. but Hwy vunlml m'vl‘n'nmu- h‘l‘lll‘llt‘l'Y. .\ll Inm'cmonls ul' I'N‘m‘ln hzn‘u llwil' -Illkl(l.~',.|l1ll [llO Social Crwli! Mona mu-nt is no! :m vxrcplinn. \\'v lu-ullv-:IIIly llan'l‘ [lmm in .\‘t‘\\' ZL‘uLuul, 10'). —AI :un, chm, RH.\ll,<ll.\\\' I:llH\\'.\‘li. Hamilton. Juno 2!. —____.

(To the Editor.) Sin—Mr McMillan states that, “ii. is_ nonsense to say ihat Mr Nicolaus advocated confiscation." yet this is the “nonsense" ihat M - Nicoiuus did admit hi the owl of his debate in answer to u questioner. ’l‘his udinisison will re—quire u lot of explaining away, as ioo many people iisicncd Lu the debate for iii to he denied. ‘ 1 would remind .\ir McMillan um ‘ii is not Mr Ray sneaking, but his own ‘i‘ilflillliiOli. \\'th (ivuiing \\'iih confis‘vntiun nnd refunding iliil'li'DVClliCHtSA in ”mm; puiiiis ni'e deniml m- .\li‘ .\ic.\iiiinn ihvn he is condemning his ‘uwn mmmisniiun. : \\‘hni is ihn liii'i'Ci‘L‘iii‘l) hoiwecn :1 .ln\ unxi :1 rent? niks thu conii‘ibuior. E’l'hi' tiii‘l‘uri'vnri- is ihis: 'l‘nxi's ;|i'L‘ (10* Elnaunis by lho Stalin i'ui' ihu nphucn ui‘ i‘IIH' .wmii'i-s ni‘ Hit: runnnunii)‘. licnis Ul'i' ilvxnnmk by “\\nl'i's ui‘ properly :i‘ui' lin- use ui‘ lill‘ii' Lind. I lilii‘iiihil'iiii)‘ lhvy :Innmnl In llh‘ isiilm- illing'. ii is in imtli cum-s .1 iiinnnvini |'liill'éll‘ i‘m- Maui-I'o2 nnu is rui— Elm-ling lln- ulhvr iilt|i\i!ill.il, .\ii i'i-nls inwlu- iin' (li'iliill' n sL'l'l', an -|u hum: iliiv} I”.an us .wri.‘ in ilu‘ mum-y humvr. i\n.ii.\su lilo lunnvnis nunii:l'ui' illit‘i'U‘i niuni‘ i'l'nin iiw i'nii‘s ni‘ :xin- ii.uniiiun lini‘nlllglll [inuni'ii nnni ih-z li'l'>ll|i >lnx'llv,~ iili‘ixiiv'pznl'i'uhil>\\|i‘|i -in‘ pan; iln' iiililli')]('llili'l', i 1 is lhv hiiiiit‘ \\'iih i.i\n'.~. NH. i'vnt is :1 x‘liiuw, \\iu-ihm- \‘i'llillJHlil‘ n-ni lii‘ nilu-rnisu. —l uni. L‘il'._ iii-2H l(i\\'. Humiliun. June 2.

GARDEN PLACE HILL. (To the Editor.) Sim—Mr A. Bryce apparently thinks it is necessary to preserve the View from Garden Place Hill. I would like to point out that if the hill is removed lthe view from Hamilton West School [site is even better. It is high time that this old school was done away Ewith and relegated to the outskirts as lbusiness extends. The site at“ Hamil—ton West School would be much lbetter for the purposes Mr Bryce lmentions than Garden Place Hill, and {1 think the Minister of Education should be asked to support the idea, ‘as I feel certain he wouid.—l am, etc., I new THOUGHT. ' Hamilton, June 3. TAXATION AND LAND RENTS. (To the Editor.) Sim—Mr Leo Kay’s letter in your paper has been drawn to my attention. and i would be obliged to you for space wherein to answer his wrong conclusion as to my policy—namely, that it is one of contlscation. There is only one class of person who will assert that the Commotiwealth Land Party‘s policy of land restoration is one of confiscation, and that is the class who are to-day pocketing the increased value attach—ing to land due to the spending of public funds and the general industry of the people increasing the produc—tion of wealth. inventions, improved breeding of live stock, more efilclent organisation, quicker transport and means of communication, are all factors in thus increasing the productivity of the land, both in the city and the country. I have no knowledge as to who or what Mr Kay is, but it is self-evident that he is suffering from a sense of injustice because of: (i) Paying taxation to the Government; (2) paying land rent to private persons. Yet, [instead of inquiring as to the cause of these two injustices, he blunders into the fairly common error that a Government does not need revenue from the people, but has only to print bank notes in order to carry out the multifarious activities falling to its administration. Governments use real wealth, not bank notes, and that real wealth must come from the total production or the people. There is nowhere else for it to come from. 1M must, therefore, come from the panic in taxation or from the land of the country as land rentals. Taxation, Mr Kay rightly says, is unjust and economically ruinous. The alternative—the collection by the Government of the land rentals oi’ the country—must then be examined from the viewpoint of community justice and economic soundness. Firstly, the land being necessary to life, must; be the rightful inheritance of all people, as is the air. sunshine, etc. Now, if all have an equal right to it, the land must be treated as an estate in common; therefore the land rentals must be the common, equally-divisible property of the people. Secondly, under the present system the individual pays both land rent and taxation; and as land rent cannot be abolished it must [always be paid. The point. is who to? The Commonwealth Land Party assert lthat such payment must be made to lthe State, whose rightful revenue it is, and all taxation abolished. Such procedure would not only leave the individual the full result of his labour, tax free, but would provide such things as railways, roads, harbours, airports, trains, etc., also tax free and debt free. Moreover, the land rent, being based on the monetary return of the total production, would automatically‘ iluc-luate with such return, thus enlsuring a stability to the producer. Confiscation is taking place in two [quarters to-day—namely the State Iconilscaling the results of private lproduction and the rentier contiscating tihe rightful return of the community as represented by the State. I would ask Mr Kay it he can justify the word ”confiscation" when applied to the linking from an individual what is not ‘his by right and returning it to the Ttrue owner? If he can, then our whole philosophy regarding Justice is .false. In viewing this question from the angle of the whole of the people, Mr Kay cannot but admit my proposal is Just, economic, practical and the only means of putting our house in order in anticipation of the world break-up. —I am, ctc., E. W. NICOLAUS. Wellington, June 2.