"THE CHOICE BEFORE THE ELECTORS"

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21577, 13 September 1935, Page 22

"THE CHOICE BEFORE THE ELECTORS"

TO THI SDITOSt 07 til *WtBB. Sir,—ln your leading article of September 5 you express the opinion that the choice before the electors should be between Labour and Coalition. With all due respect, this contention is one that many electots cannot and will not support To many of us the more important issue is whether the legislation of the Coalition Government has been such as to merit approval and continued support. No doubt some beneficial measures have been passed, but in their relative importance and in their ultimate bearing upon the welfare of this Dominion any benefits conferred by these measures are entirely overshadowed by the gross injustices contained in much of the legislation of the last three years. Briefly, the possibility of Labour's advent to power is not regarded as of so much importance as is the necessity of giving the large body of electors known to believe in justice and equity an opportunity of recording their votes without being identified as supporters of either Coalition or Labour. Indeed, the knowledge that such third party exists and is determined that justice .shall be done to all sections of the community would be the best guarantee against the further abuse of power, by whatever party may gain office.

To refer in detail to all the mistakes of the present Government would unduly tax the space that you so generously place at correspondents' disposal. It may therefore suffice to bring under notice the utterly unfair nature of one of the principles embodied in the Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act, 1934-35, and to ask those who may feel inclined to support the so-called National party how they can possibly justify such a choice. I refer to the distribution of income from a farm in respect of which a "stay order" has been issued. Under the act living expenses of the mortgagor and his family become the first charge, then farm working expenses, and afterwards rates, taxes, and other statutory charges, in the order named. Should there be any income remaining, presumably it will be paid to the mortgagee. The gross injustice of this arrangement is that although the mortgagee may have advanced 75 per cent, or more of the value of the property, yet during the currency of the "stay order" he may receive absolutely nothing, not even one penny towards the expense entailed by his many and unavoidable visits to his solicitor in defence of his rights. To many of us this seems nothing more nor less than sheer robbery, legalised, it is true, but none the less robbery, and utterly indefensible on the plea of expediency.

Recently, as reported in "The Press" and in defence of Coalition legislation, the Rt Hon. G. W. Forbes drew a parallel with political events in England. But justification by such a misleading contention is inadmissible. The British National Government has not departed from traditional ideas of right and justice. It knows too well what the resulting loss of confidence on the part of the public would be and the chaos in business that would follow. Granted that financial assistance, to many farmers was a matter of national necessity, there was another and more equitable way in which that end could have been attained, viz., by helping deserving cases at the expense of the consolidated fund and thereby spreading the loss among the community as a whole. Reductions in rent or interest to an absolutely reasonable minimunK was

in the circumstances fair, but to go beyond that by appropriating the property of one section of the community to help another section is opposed to all principles of justice and equity. I submit with all du°

this is the paramount issue, the vital point on which voies ' and that by doing what they believe to be right, rather than by giving their approval to the wrong that has been done, electors should refuse to be influenced by the possibility of Labour winning the election.—Yours, H. C. LANE. September 11, 1935. [The third party mentioned by our correspondent may be " determined that justice shall be done by all sections of the commu- \ nity," but it cannot obtain an absolute majority in the next Parliament. At the most it will secure enough seats to enable it to bargain with the two other parties. An elector who votes for it must therefore realise that he is voting to establish a minority government—Ed. "The Press."]