SOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9387, 10 April 1896, Page 3

SOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —Under the above heading you publish in to day's (April Bth) IJKKSS1 J KKSS a letter from some one rightly signing himself " Fossil,'" iv which he takes Dr. Klmslie to task for "profound ignorance" of the causes which produce poverty, _c, aud in the course of his remarks shows such au taTAouuding amount of ignorance himself of what he is talking about that one la at a loss to know which error to take up tirst. However, if he will read the Duke of Argyie's " Unseen Foundation l * of Society," ho will find tiie whole of the fallacies he is labouring under and quotes re private ownership, nationalisation of the land, nonproductive classes, &j., fully gone into, and answered so completely, aud the utter fallacy of tbem so logically and thoroughly demonstrated, that eveu a "Fossil" caunot. fail to be convinced, that is if he is willing and able to understaud uudeuiable facts and logical arguments.

There is, however, one point that admits of ami requites a definite reply. He says neither this Government nor any Government is responsible for existing poverty, &c. On this point I distinctly join issue with him, and 1 think I cau prove in a very few words that it is entirely owing to the ■action of the present Government that the worst of tho poverty and the pressing nature of the unemployed difficulty is due. The Government, by overtaxing every description of enterprise and employment, from farming upwards, especially by the insecurity of land tenure, have driven capital away aud utterly prevented its employment, and thereby prevented the employment of labour, lience the unemployed. In illustration of this, being one only out of hundreds of such cases, I know a good practical farmer who recently came oul here with his family and several thoussuds of pounds capital, resolved to settle here, but he had net been here long before, discjveriDg the insecurity of land tenure, he dec'ared he would never settle in

a cottulry tvith such a Government, which taxed all enterprise, and where there was no telling whan a properly might be taken possession of by the Government, and accordingly he returns to England, and he tells mc some thirty or forty other practical fanners were awaiting his report, which it is needless to say will effectually prevent their coming. Thus, putting their capital at suy £3000 to £1000 each, there is something like £100,000 of capital kept out, and which would probably have afforded employment for 100 men, and how many hundreds or thousands of similar cases there may be I caunot say ; but a great many others 1 have heard of, there-., fore how anyone can shut their eyes to tbe fact that it is the present Government's socialistic legislation and interference with the employment of capital which has enormously increased, it not caused, the present acute phase of the "unemployed " question is past my comprehension.

Aud so long as this or any other Government attempt to legislate for one class only, and set class against class by special legisation, ami so long as it and the working classes ignore the fact, which there is no gainsaying, that three factors are absolutely essential to ail successful enterprise and industry, viz , capita!, brains, and labour, so long poverty, stagnation, and the unemployed will increase rather than diminish, when if ever party Government, log-iolling, extravagant expenditure, " spoils to the victors," can be done away with then, with a better understanding between capital and labour, viz., that their interests are identical and nob inimical, or as the Duke of Argyle puts it that ■• capital is nothing but the results of labour and thrift stored up," then poor New Zsalaud may see a return of that prosperity which should be hers, aud should never have left her, but for political fads, socialistic legislation, and other nonsense enough to ruin any country.—Yours, See, Common Sense.