Untitled

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15174, 12 January 1915, Page 6

We aro glad to be able to announce to-day th:it the committee who have been asking for funds to provide a. travelling kitchen for our troops in Kgypt hitvo obtained the money required. The lists hud been open yesterday for a week, and over £1000—the sum aimed at—has been subscribed. In normal times this would be considered splendid, and it is really very pood oven in these abnormal times, for there are many funds for which appeals are being mode. The committee deserves congratulations upon tho speedy success of their appeal for the cooking outfit. Those who subscribed will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have made a very good and useful gift to our men. The success of ibis appeal should inspire the- public to come forward quickly with their half-crowns for Lady Liverpool's fund for the purchase of oilskins for tho men on the battle-cruiser Now Zealand.

Delightful material for a new definition of independence is supplied by au article in our excellent contemporary, tho Dunedin '"Star." On Saturday it opened an editorial with a solemn rebuko to a Wellington journal, tho f 'Post." As a rule, ifc said, the Wellington paper " : takes a broad outlook," but of lato ifc has shown "a disposition to wobble, and to depart from its attitude of sturdy independence." Reading on, wo find that tho sole offence of the Wellington paper, which is simply set forth without another Tvord of comment, is that-"it reviewed the political situation, a.s disclosed by the oflicial returns of the General Election, and gave tho numbers as: Ministerial, 41, Opposition 39." What else could the poor "Post" have said? It simply stated a fact But as the fact is one that tho Opposition dislike, those who state the fact are partisans! One recalls the exclamation of tho angry unionist. "Arbitration!" ho cried. "Arbitration? Call that arbitration? , Why, he's given it against us!"

The "Hon. Andrew Fisher Reception Committee" have resolved, at a special meeting, that Mr Massey should "at once offer his resignation to the Governor, or in the alternative call Parliament together immediately." This singular .action,'we'should say, will set Mr Fisher thinking that he might have included in' his advice to Labour in New Zealand a few words upon the value of cultivating a seuse of tlio fitness of things. There is not much need to be surprised, of course, that the Fisher Reception Committee could not bear to dissolve without indulging themselves in their love for t'resolving" on something and '"'calling tipon" somebody to do something unnecessary. Let half a dozen New Zealand Labour "loaders' , como together, for any purpose, ■ and they will think ifc sinful to waste the opportunity to issue one of those twopenny little ultimatums- of which millions, or at any rate thousands, have been produced in the past decade.

The grounds upon which tho committee called on Mr Massoy to resign or summon Parliament' are worth notice. They aro two in number: CI) "The bungling of his fthe Prime Minister's - ; electoral officers," and (2) '-'the faej that he docs not possess the confidence of a majority of the electors." The. first of theso may-strike many- people a.s an intentional joke by the committee : we need sny no more concerning it than that the electoral officers were not Mr Massey's at all: nearly all of them were officers who had been appointed by bis predecessors. It is entirely true that a majority of tho electors did not vote for Reforni candidates, but it i's equally true that neittier the Ward nor Labour parties could count on much more than half the votes cast for Refcrn;. (Nearly haff tho supporters, of .Sir J. G. Ward's nominees must have been Labour voters). 'No party siK-ured a majority of the votes cast, but the Reform party polled by far the largest proportion. Indeed, a turnover of only 13,000 voters, or less than 3 per cent, of the- voters, would have given the Government a majority over all other parties combined. Perhaps the "Fisher Reception Committee" will say what party did secure the confidence of a majority of the voters.

In the cour-e of his speech on the War Budget. Mr Arthur Henderson, tho Labour Leader in tho House of Commons, made the interesting suggestion that wa.ges should be taxed. Better than a duty on tea, he eaid, would bo

"a graduated tax on wage incomes." Some d-iy, he suggested, soiuo Chancellor of tho Exchequer would adopt this idea, and as to the collection of such a tax. ho did not anticipate* any greater difficulty than has attended the working of the Insurance Act. Mr George replied that he had considered a wages-tax, and had rejected it as too complicated and troublesome. At the same time, he approved the principle, and declared that if there were a general sentiment on the subject, it would be possible to put it through. To the principle of a wages-tax there is in theory no objection. Tts cardinal weakness is the difficulty and cost of collection. We do not know how such a proposal would be regarded in this country. There would certainly bo people ready to denounce it as a device to lighten the burdens of the "hated ■ -..•---—• r —

capitalist." But if ever any Minister of Finance does introduce such a tax — which would necessarily be accompanied by the reduction or abolition of other taxes—ho will b© able to cite Radical authority for it.