PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20727, 10 February 1939, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, wnose letters are welcome, but (or whose views we have no responsibility, Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enelose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

CHRISTIAN SOCIAL JUSTICE

(To the Editor) Sir,—l write to again put before the people the desirability of forming a people’s party and to assure them that there is a correct way in monetary reform, the non-balancing of the budget system, also a correct way in policy, the policy of Christian social justice. It is obvious that the matter is quite urgent, and all classes should be ready to assist. The Douglasites, for Instance, since they do not now intend to make any political move of their own, should do all they can to aid the launching of a progressive people's party. And the Nationalists, who surely must now know that, they have no hope of ever again unseating Labour, would also do well thoroughly to examine the* new way. Surely in a policy of Christian social justice tlmir one question of interest on capital could lie satisfactorily solved, so that they could then have no reason for opposing or hindering the introduction of a correct and natural money system with its many advantages to all the people. Under the new order it would be quite practical that interest on capital could be paid by the Plate, even as the Ptate at present is paying interest on Post Office deposits. And the guaranteeing by the Slate of a nominal interest on capital not otherwise invested would be a cheap price to pay for a freed money system. Then, also, as would he in line with the methods to be used throughout the new order, the rate of interest to be paid on capital could be arrived at through a commission and chief justices, the same as would decide the amount of a guaranteed price or a wage rate. Also In a people’s party the findings of a commission would always be faithfully adhered to, and all decisions based according to the commission’s findings, and not, as under the present Government, where the findings of the commission of the guaranteed price for dairy produce was overridden by Mr Nash. Also in the new order there would he no convenient altering of the law without the full knowledge and approval of the people. The first step in forming a party would be the formulating of a policy entirely approved by the people: then any candidate would have to ne pledged or sworn in to that policy, and any desire to change the laws or the introduction of any new laws would necessitate the matter being fully thrashed out in the columns of a free Press, while the people themselves could discuss the matter at meetings, and then any intended new law or alteration in the law' would finally have to pass the chief justices or open court before it could be put on the Statute Book. The laws of the land would then be made by the people under the supervision of their chief justices, who, of course, would be men of the highest integrity, sworn to impartiality and to accepting no bribes, and whose guiding principles would be Christian social justice always. Lawmaking then would be in safe hands, and at last we would have sound, democratic government. The capitalist ought to be satisfied with that, and since the capitalist party’s own policy will never get them anywhere, as most of the people now' know' It can only cater for a selfinterested few', let them consider what they could get by supporting a people’s party with a policy of Christian social justice. They could always be sure of their bit of interest and there would be less taxation. Then also as regards the stability of money under the new’ order, they need have no fear that money will not hold Its buying power under the nonbalancing of the budget system, as that system employs the one correct method of stabilising money. The explaining of the method used would be rather much for these columns, but as the writer has got that most important matter well put out in writing, and detailed to the last argument, he would be quite willing to put it, as well as the policy, before any interested persons or gathering. It would of course require a full evening, as the more intricate parts such as those dealing with the money system, must of necessity call for the expenditure of a little time and thought if they are to be fully understood, as they must be, before the system can be judged. It might also be mentioned here that while the party must put up candidates in the usual way in order to get to power, after it got to power the party system would then end, and in place of the usual party candidate a member would be the elected represensative of each occupational group. And an occupational group would comprise all, from the highest-paid artisan to the lowest-paid clerk, who might be employed in any one industry (all being considered indispensable to the industry), so that on a somewhat cooperative basis the interests of each and all would be justly catered for. The new order is the recognised alternative to Communism and Fascism, and is being fostered by the Christian churches throughout the world. It is reported to be making rapid progress in Europe and America. Also we read that one country that has enjoyed the new order for some time has now announced that it has opened its frontiers to tourists and travellers, who may come in and see for themselves and thus enlighten the world regarding what has been accomplished by the new order. So there is a correct way in monetary reform and politics, but we will see”nothing of it for ourselves so long as we are content to just change bark and forth from one extreme party to the other. We must bestir ourselves and form our own people’s party. The writer has no motives of self-interest, but it quite confident that, after having studied the subject for some years, he can put up the last thing in policy and method should it ever be required. ■ —I am, etc., J. P. KRIPPNER. Te Rore, February G.

RAGLAN ELECTORATE

JTo the Editor) Sir,—ln your issue of January 1* Mr \V. P. Kenah stated that I wa s the Douglas Credit candidate for Raglan, and that he had “plenty of proofs" to that effect, l wrote asking Mr Kenah to please publish his 60-called “proofs." In reply to my request for the - plenty of proofs" Mr Kenah published in the Times of January 30 four reasons (not proofs) to prove his accusation of my being a Douglas Credit candidate. In the same letter Mr Kenah admits that he doe 6 not understand the principles of Douglas Credit when he states: “No one can understand them, much less explain them.” Of course too mw” Includaa Mr Kenah. The so-called “proofs" given by Mr Kenah are as follows: 1) "That every person I conversed with referred to Mr Callichan as the iTouglas Credit candidate"; (2 “that every Douglas Credit supporter gave his vote to Mr Callichan"; .'{ “that Mr Galliehan's address at Haglan was pure Douglas Credit”: i Mr Gallichan assured his audience that it was stupid to condemn Douglas Credit because of tlie Alberta experiment, as Mr Aberhavt bad never had the chance to try the system out.” Before dealing with these four childish reasons not proofs) I wish to emphatically deny that I was the selected Douglas candidate, as such is impossible, being contrary to the constitution of Douglas Credit; hut it was freely advertised that I was the selected candidate of the "Freedom and Economic Security League,” which is a different thing. Of course Mr Kenali would not understand the difference. as he admits the details of Douglas Credit are beyond him. I am afraid Mr Kenah is exaggerating when he states “every person I conversed with.” Every one? In any case I cannot accept Mr Kenah’s statement. as we only have his word for it, and that is not “proof.” He says that every Douglas Credit supporter gave his vote to Mr Galllchan. It is nearly two years since I resigned from the Douglas Credit Association, for reasons which it is not necessary to ventilate here, and I can candidly state that many of my old associates told me quite candidly they were not supporting me; some were voting for Labour and some were voting National. It is not for me to dissect their viewpoint here. Mr Kenah practically asserts that he know* every Douglas Credit supporter in the -Raglan electorate, and that every Douglas Credit supporter voted for me. Well, we have only Mr Kenah*6 simple word for such a marvellous piece of information, but as a “proof” it is childish. Mr Kenah also says that “Mr Galllrhan’s addresses were pure Douglas Credit." We can understand the position better when we remember that Mr Kenah is "proud to be a Tory.** Not a Nationalist, not a Conservative, not even a reformer, but a back 0* beyond, never-advancing dragman on the intellectual progress of economics, a never-changing Tory I Once having been associated with Douglas Credit, his one-track mind sees nothing else, and puts everything down to it. He says that I stated it was foolish to condemn a principle as being a failure if it had never been tried, it is quite possible I did say something of the kind, and it is true in relation to all economical experiments. I 6ay try anything that shows a reasonable prospect of bettering the conditions of the people and don’t condemn anything you do not understand. This advice goes also to an anchored old Tory such as our friend Mr Kenah. So proof No. 4 is just as childish as the others. 1 think Mr Kenah owes me an apology for his unfounded and tncorrect statements that I was a Douglas Credit candidate, for he has not given, and cannot give, any “proof,” as it is not true. —1 am, etc., A. J. GALLICHAN. Hamilton, February 6,