INTERRUPTIONS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22338, 28 February 1938, Page 9

INTERRUPTIONS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS

TO IH'I BOITOa OF THE PRESS. Sir,—When going through my morning paper of February 23, I came across a letter signed "Liberty." It brought to my mind how Mr Nash was received at Hamilton just lately. He had been invited to debate the case for the guaranteed price against the compensating price. The man chosen to oppose Mr Nash was a farmer of the district. Thirty minutes each were allowed, and 15 to 20 minutes each to reply, and five minutes for the finish. . Mr Nash was chosen to lead. I have never heard any subject put before the public more to the point than In the Minister's speech. After the other gentleman had said that he Would deal with the compensating price later, that was about all we heard on the subject. After bringing the Minister all the way to Hamilton to discuss the compensating price, he did nothing but pull the Government to pieces. When he had run himself out, he said 30 minutes was not long enough. Now, if Mr Nash could give such a splendid insight into his side of the question in 30 minutes, why should the other gentleman want more? Mr Nash, in reply, said, "I am disappointed, what did we come here for? There is nothing to answer." Then the audience started. "Liberty" talks about disturbing Mr Endean. Well, it was only child's play compared with what Mr Nash got. Did "Liberty" think before he wrote his letter? The electors have only to cast their minds back to 1931, when the Nationalist Party was returned with an open cheque. It was great. "No policy, do as you like," and? they did it. They stopped credit to all manufacturers, merchants, and retailers, cut the old-age pension, broke up the unions, put 100,000 workers out of work. The spending power was finished. The tradesmen put oh no learners, and now we have about 60.000 who have no calling, and they have grown to man's and woman's estate knowing nothing. Let "Liberty" folv low me into the city at that H»me. There were the bankers, lawyers, and c!er!s..'Viding donkeys in Hereford street,*Christchurch. Ladies in the city were competing as queens, the tramway employees worked like niggers after their own work was done, all to try to collect money, food, and old or new clothes for the starving men, women, and children. For you must not forget there were quite a lot of these people lying on the bare boards, with old sacks for bedding. While this was going on, the Government, with an open cheque, relieved the large land owner of £BOO 000 of land tax, when there was no money for anything else. In 1934 they gave themselves another year in office, Without the consent of the electors. Is that what you call liberty? I have never heard that people had to ask the Government for libertv to die, out that is v/hat it amounted to. . Now, turn to the sub-leader in Th.Press" of Fobvuarv 24—half a buj column about the disturbance of Mr Endean's meeting, but there was no sub-leader on the disturbance of, Mr Nash. Since the Right Hon. R. J. don died in 1906, the well-being of the masses in New Zealand continued to

ernmint 935, v ? en the Labour Gov- ™" E a , s r£ : tu ™ed. No one in this can £, y ntiL hj V s honest with Wmself, can do other than admit that we have X+ a i g £! n w £ at was denied u s from 1906 to 193o.—Yours, etc, GOD'S OWN COUNTRY. February 2G, 1938.

lO THB EDITOR OF THB PRESS. Sir,—l read with interest J. Hill's letter appearing in your issue of today. I regard this letter as eyewash. If Mr Hill would like to put the matter to the test, I invite him to attend meetings where the electors are addressed by Labour candidates, and similar meetings addressed by antiLabour candidates. He will find, as I have, that the Labour candidate invariably gets a fair hearing and that the anti-Labour candidate rarely, if ever, gets a fair hearing. The conclusion to be drawn is obvious.—Yours, etc., ELECTOR. Ashburton, February 25, 1938.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir 1 'T J ln this morning's paper I read the letter of Mr H. Tritt, containing one or two assertions which in my opinion do not ring true. Since I do n °t believe that my name would *be sufficient to ensure the acceptance of my versions, I will back them with economic principles. (a) Payments in New Zealand for land, raw materials, labour, and capital are determined by varying degrees of monopoly. In some cases the vendor cuts prices, so as to make profits on turnover.

(b) Before wealth of any sort can be produced from the land or natural resources, labour and capital must be employed, and if the total that labour and , capital require as payment is greater than the value of the product, production is unprofitable, and must be discontinued or subsidised from other production. The payment for labour is determined by:—(a) The amount of suitable labour, the demand for such labour, and the extent to which the open market is relieved of such labour by unemployment insurance (sustenance) or the promise of better conditions and remuneration in another district, (b) The wage stipulated by organisations of labour; dictates of the Arbitration Court, or political enactments. (c) Considerations such as respect or odium attaching to the activity. The payment for use of capital (interest) depends mainly on: (a) supply and demand; (b) risk of loss or damage. The payment for the use of land: (a) rent (i.e., payment for temporary use) depends on supply and demand, which in turn depends on the expectation of profit left after labour and capital are paid. (b) Purchase price depends on the supply and demand, which depends on the capitalised value of the expectation of profit over an indefinite number of years after labour and capital are paid. In the light of these premises, let us examine some of Mr H. Tritt's allegations.

(1) The more that is paid in interest the less can be paid in wages and salaries; therefore reduction follows in these. As the payment for interest will not affect the monopoly maintained by trade unions, the unemployment insurance payments or legislation, it cannot dpiress the payment for labour, but as it will increase the cost of production, it will decrease the expectation of profits from the use of land, and therefore ultimately reduce the rent and price of land, not salaries or wages. On the contrary, an offer of higher payment for capital is to be expected to attract capital from other parts or to check its migration, and therefore increase or check the decrease in the demand for labour. (4) The primary producer, .along with the wage-earner, will bear the brunt of the increased rate. With a smaller return, he must pay a fixed charge, thereby reducing his standard of living. (Do farmers want that?) Inasmuch as the primary producer is a holder of land, he must suffer a depreciation in its value for resale or rental purposes, but the wage-earner will be unaffecterd. as increased costs of production merely reduce the surplus values of production, which are represented by rent, and are paid to those who "own" land. (6) It will take from those who can least afford, and give to those in the main who are not in need, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It will also tend to increase rents. I should like to suggest "the capitalist" for "the rich" and "the landowner" for "the poof." I suppose that by rents is meant the payment made for use of a house and section. However, if wages remain the same, the demand will be no greater, and payment made for use of a house and section must remain unaffecter, even though the-interest on the house is greater, as the land will become less valuable. I hope these remarks will be taken in the spirit they are given, notwithstanding the anonymity of the writer. -Ye-urs, etc., H INDIvmUALIST . Ashburtoh, February 25. 1938.

VO THE EDITOR OF THJt PRESS. Sir, —The organised hooliganism directed in the interest of the Labour Party at Opposition speakers, having fOr its object the drowning of the voice of criticism and argument is deolorable, indeed scandalous in a nation that boasts of Being democratic; and it is all the worse that this deliberate campaign of suppression is being waged by supporters of the one party that claims to stand more than any other for freedom of thought ana speech. The Labour. meetings are always assured of uninterrupted.hearings, and some of the Labour leaders have disavowed approval of these hooligan tactics of their clequers; but the hooliganism continues, and Labour cannot complain if people believe that it is being continued with at least the passive approval and connivance of the Labour leaders. I would quite respectfully submit a suggestion to the Prime Minister and hil colleagues, which, if adopted, will instantaneously and completely end this shameful state of affairs. its adoption would be a proof of their sin"er°itv in their traditional champiotiship for freedom of speech. Will Mr Sav•qee as Prime Minister, or he and his Cabinet as; the acknowledged leaders of Labour, issue a statement in which they will officially "pudwte any sytoo play the game at their opponents meetings, as their opponents do at Labour meetings? That is surely a fair and reasonable proposal. If they no not accept it their silence will be construed— reasonably, too-as a tacit Approval of their raucous and not too ?n?ene V ctual supporters What will Labour say to it?- Your L - T] ffe As . Ferbruary 26. 1938.

tO THE EDITOB OT THB PEES*. Sir,—l have read a lot of correspondence in your columns lately about the Opposition members, and Mr Endean in particular, not ***** good hearing when they try to make their political speeches. From what I can see they have only themselves to blame. I have heard -most of them speaking, and have also, lis ened to them over the air, and in all that I could hear they were just running down the Government. . If they want to get a hearing why are they riot getting Up and telling the people what they are going to do to remedy things? . They do not seem to have a policy at all. I did hear Mr Hamilton speaking on one occasion, and all that I could make out was that he was all for private enterprise, which is just another word for private grab. The people in this country have seen too much of private enterprise, as last election will show. If anyone has any doubts on the subject of private enterprise, all he wants to do is to pick up the daily paper and see the wars in Spain, Africa, South Arnerica, and, getting nearer home, in China. These wars

are all waged by private enterprise. The working people have no say in the matter. The only time they come in is when they have got to go away and fight.

I will leave it at that for the present, and will make a suggestion for the Opposition members when they next make their speeches. They seem to think that the people in the back seats are causing all the trouble. An easy way to remedy this would be for the big squatters and the moneylenders to come early and take the back seats themselves. I would suggest that they bring their car cushions with them, as they will find it is pretty tiresome listening to Messrs Endean, Hamilton, and company otherwise. Hoping they will get a good hearing in future.—Yours, etc..

EX-FARMER. Albury, February 25, 1938.