The Press. Thursday, June 28, 1917. A Contrast.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15939, 28 June 1917, Page 6

The Press. Thursday, June 28, 1917. A Contrast.

We cannot help wondering what Sir Joseph Ward will think of thp people who believe that it is incumbent upon a Liberal to describe as "semi-starva- " tion" a slight reduction of tho ample :liet of Now Zealanders and a slight mrtailment of expenditure on clothing end pleasures. He is not very likely, we should say, to applaud thoso who denounce as cruel and uufeeling our suggestion that tho cost of living would not seem or bo so high if people wero content with, a lower scalo of living. Ho is moro apt to wonder what on earth his frionds are thinking of to say such strango things. "In our own "ease," ho told our representative in Auckland, in his interesting account of lifo in England, which*wo printed on Tuesday, "in our own case, we wore •' limited to half a slice of bread per ' • head per meal, to two ounces of " meat, and a very small lump of ''sugar; in fact, tho piece of sugar ■'* apportioned was a third the size of '• an ordinary lump of loaf sugar, and ' those who ordinarily took sugar with their porridgo had to mako the samo "picco of sugar suffice both for toa • or coffee and porridge." Now, tho standard of living of tho poorest people in New Zealand is substantially higher than that which Sir Joseph Ward found universal in England. The standard of living of the average New Zcalander eculd bo Enormously reduced, and it would still bo higher than the English scale. Yet tho moderato reduction which wo havo rocommendcd, as one to be made by all classes, a reduction which would leave n standard that would rank in England as unpatriotically luxurious, has been denounced as equal to "semi- '■ starvation" 1 In every English newspaper that comes to New Zealand there are artielcs, exhortations, and nftk'ial notices which contrast very strangely with the local outcries concerning "tho high cost of living," and tho consequent wickcdness of asking :hc general public to contribute to the tost of tho war. By the "cost of •'living" tho advocates of financial shirking mean tho cost of living up to the hic-\'i pre-war standard. This, of course, iloes cost substantially moro than it used to; but, will anyone frankly v is ' st that that standard should bo maintained^ 1 The cost of living would cease to worry anybody, and everybody, even thoso with tho smallest incomes, would be better off financially than ever" before, if somotliing of the English practice were adopted. "Every • '"--Virwya should eat one pouud of bread

"loss per weak than hitherto," is an injunction which wo should be reviled for issuing here. It would be denounced as a cruel suggestion by a brutish "enemy of the people." Yet that is the official order in Britain, endorsed and emphasised by the united Press of the Kingdom, cheerfully obeyed by the patriotic Englishman of every class, objected to by none, and evaded only by the greedy and deceitful pcoplo who aro as inaccessible to the appeals of patriotism and the commands of duty as those in this country who demand that they shall not be asked to pay a farthing, towards tho cost of the war. It should he in vain that these selfish peoplo and tlieir backers will quote to Mr Massey and Sir Joseph Ward "the high cost of '"living" as a prohibition against any demand that they shall make some sacrifice in the common cause. Mr Massey and Sir Joseph have scon with their own eyes the prevalence in England of a standard of living compared with which the New Zealand standard is luxury; they have shared a dietary tho adoption of which in New Zealand would produce a surplus in everyone's household budget. They know, and we trust they will bo eloquent in publishing their knowledge, that the pcoplo of this country aro infinitely bet tor off than they imagine, and that they are well able to reduce their consumption ir. all directions, and to begin—after nearly three years of war, to begin—to discharge their duty of payment and sacrifice.