SOME POVERTY PROBLEMS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9385, 8 April 1896, Page 3

SOME POVERTY PROBLEMS.

TO TUB EDITOR OF THS PRESS. Sib, —Id your iaaue of 4th inst. you publiah a paper under the above head l>y Dr. Elmslie, and which calls for some remark. Id the tiret place Dr. Elmslie asks, •• How happens it that .... throughout New Zealand poverty among the poorer c asses is so largely on the increase ? " Well he might ask, aa alao ask why not only iv New Zealaud but in civilised countries ttie world over, is poverty on the increase? The Doctor's answer, if answer it can be termed, shows how profoundly ignorant he is of what is at work to produce poverty, and that iv the presence of voluminous wealth; and it is a curious and foregone process of reasjning by which Dr. Klmslie arrives at his conclusions. ifirsb, ie cannot be *• the ravages of strong drink," as the colony's drink bill gradually diminished, ver capita. Next, it ia "much more likely the thing connects itself with the want of employment," &c Very good for Doctor Elmslie, and now for his grand master stroke in his query as to " how this comes about in a country where there is so much to be done ? " which results in an unfair stab by him at the present Government. I say shame, neither this nor any Government is chargeable for the world-wide depression connected with poverty which the Doctor complaine of, rather would it be connected with all and sundry right through the ages who have held such anti-progressive notions as the Doctor himself. This, by the way, and now we are coming to the real cause of bad legislation, unemployed, the degeneration of character and large charitable aid rates, and what is it. With a zeal worthy of the Doctor himself and auy similar fossil, the learned Doctor asks, "Has it come of the Socialistic atmosphere we have been compelled to breathe, or of the Socialistic literature our people read, or ot the Socialistic legislation that has been coming to birth in our land?" I have remarked upon Dr. Elmslie's conclusions, but I think Ibis rather a mistake upon my part, for it appears that he has none; ,he is in the negative. Dr. Elmslie merely gives forth insinuating questions. Had he something positive I suppose he would have demonstrated it, as it is he haa enlightened no one.

Now, with regard to Socialistic tendencies in legislation, literature or otherwise, I in some respects am not a Socialist, except as identified with principles laid down in a certain old Book, wish to remark that in all socialistic literature which I have read the principle of the nationalisation of the land, i.e., of all Nature's resources, is distinctly laid.down, and, moreover, it is clearly shown that all social maladjustments of whatever character are clearly traceable to the monopolisation in private ownership of those things which Nature designed for all. Private ownership explains the reason for poverty side by Bide with advancing wealth, and explains sweating and tendency to low wages and interest. It shows why neither large public expenditure nor retrenchment are connected with permanent prosperity, it explains why armies and navies are kept up, and it shows that these armies, navies, Royal families, Supreme and Lower Courts, with all their officials and expanses of infinite variety, all non-productive, Civil servants, gaols and officers, police and detective forces, and, in fact, all that, never do hand's turn from year's end to year's end, including the doctor himself. I say that a demonstration of the land question shows how all the foregoing are direct charges upon the industry of the nation, because those who do not produce are simply a charge upon thO3e who do, and this will in s> very large measure explain why poverty is always on the increase ; and as society is graded into three classes, viz., workers, beggars and thieves, the reason why the workers get so little is because the beggars and thieves get so much. lam prepared to go thoroughly into these questions if Dr. Elmslie wishes and the proprietors of the Press have no objection. One thing stands onfc very clear, and that is the fact ot this doctrine of land nationalisation is based upon some of the teachings of the. Old Book, which I mentioned and which our friend the Doctor ought to be well acquainted with, for it is not without wisdom that Jehovah gave command, " The land shall not be sold for ever; <or the land is mine." (Leviticus xxv., 23). Coming back to some other remarks, I notice the Doctor does not believe in the Government interfering •" with th« labour market, nor any other market." First of all, we want to know what is Government? and what are and what should be its functions? I say that a Government should be a central board of direction to work everything in the intereetsrof.and to cater for all the requirements of those who placa them in that position as being members of largj family. The Doctor, remark that the Government should not touch the unemployed question "under ordinarycxrcumstances, but leave the labour market to the law of supply and demand "; that is let the whole thing go to where it is gointj to-day— to the . And pray what is the " law of supply and demand"? There is not such> a law as clearly definable as the Doctor would make out. Nowhere In the civilized world is th« pernicious doctrine of " supply and demand " workable under pcjasuv circumst-jces. In conclusion I feel bound to e»y that in my judgment the Doctor must be soff ning frtm ossification of the heart, and may require treatment on the lines of Ezek. xxxvi., 26.— for & more heartless paper on poverty problems it would be difficult to find, and a man with any feeling or sense of humanity would be probed to the core by the dissertation of the trnth concerning social quei tione. I think that the Doctor may well have bad *' hesitation and misgiving" before penning or reading such problems, and it would have been better had he further hesitated until he had found out the trnth concerning them. -1 close with a prediction applicable to the Doctor ,or any similar anti-progreaaivist.

Biere in the cold Museum one day, Lifeless— bnt not much chanced —he lay, His corse displaying as in life A rtate, defined by the device "A Fossa*"