TWO KINDS OF SUNSHINE

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21257, 31 August 1934, Page 18

TWO KINDS OF SUNSHINE

TO THE BDITOB 0? THE PRESS. Sir—l am not certain that Professor Macmillan Brown is quite correct in his statement in his article in "The Press' of August 15, "That our present period of depression is the longest and most widespread of any that the world has experienced." In former times, even 30 years ago, and still more, 50, 60, 70 or even 100 years ago, these industrial catastrophies did not attract public attention to the same extent. In small manufacturing towns in Scotland the workers often had to be content with half time for years, and big employers were often completely ruined by the bad trade. I witnessed that in the 1870's. There was no mistaking it, but the spirit of independence helped them to bear their lot, a very hard one, and there was not a tenth part of the complaining there has been in New Zealand during the last few years, and not a tenth part of the assistance given in many ways from government downwards to local bodies and private associations, which has been so prevalent here. Every man and woman considered that they were responsible for their own maintenance. Self-reliance and self-denial were marked features in their character. It was a much less extravagant age than the present. They retained their respectability and self-respect in its full sense. Wages were small. Even in the early part of this century women in factories received a wage of only 10s a week. The manager of a jute factory in Dundee told me that the women I saw at the looms were paid a wage of 10s a week. I never saw a finer or more healthy looking set of young Women in my life. The manager said, "Cheap labour is a necessity in our business."

I maintain that the catastrophies which came to business in New Zealand a few years ago are mainly due to excessive wages, which began in the early period of the war. When the war came, the young men of the country volunteered for service in large numbers, but after a time the heads of the government felt that many who were physically fit for war service were not volunteering, so they made war service compulsory, and then every man physically fit and not i too old had to give up everything in his life, and take his chance in the war. Many of our grand young men never returned and bore the great hardships and suffering of military service with little or no complaint. Now was it right or prudent to indulge those who remained in New Zealand in the luxury of high wages, rising in the ease of manual labour from 7s a day to 14s, and the payment of all others in proportion, i.e., double their ordinary pay up to the outbreak of war? Should we not all have been called upon to make as great an economic sacrifice as the men at the front? Is not the whole nation really in the war, once it comes on such I a scale, requiring every fit man to go? But as things were allowed to move in such a manner both during the war and after it had ceased, it is no wonder that the cost of living became a serious item, and if it had not been

for the courage and enterprise of a few firms in the business of supplying the needs of life, that expense would have continued much longer. But the action of these Arms has been of gigantic service to the community, notwithstanding terrible prices and especially rents, which continued at such a high figure so long as a result of the boom in properties. A well-known business man, returning from a visit to Great Britain, stated in "The Press" that Is would go as far in England as 2s 6d in New Zealand a few years ago. It may appear that my communication, so far, does not bear much relation to the professor's article, but it really does, for the sunshine in our lives largely depends upon our circumstances and mode of living, and this largely depends upon ourselves and is not a matter of wages. High wages means high cost of living and also moans foolish extravagance and folly in spending those wages in many cases, sufficiently numerous to give a tone to the style of life in each class. Professor Macmillan Brown's statement that wars are greatly influenced by the trade in war armaments is true. I have long held that opinion. I see only one remedy for that evil. If the League of Nations could embrace the chief nations of the world and would adopt a policy I have long thought of and have expressed privately, but not in a newspaper, war could be prevented. All nations in the league could agree not to sell to or buy from any nation that threatened to be the cause of war any goods of any kind. No nation could stand out against such a practice by all leading nations and . any nation breaking this rule by trading with the war nations would be treated in the same way as the nation actually at war. If an agreement could be come to as to the proper working of such a scheme. I feel sure it would prevent war. War is a brutal business and disputes between nations should admit of settlement by proper judicial tribunals rather than by politicians. War has developed to such a scale and the whole world is so greatly impressed by a desire to prevent its occurrence, that I think this scheme of absolutely refraining from trade of any kind with a nation bent on war is the most likely way of preventing it for all time. Such an agreement would bring the sunshine of life to the whole world.—Yours, etc., A. F. J, MICKLE. August 30, 1934.