EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2866, 2 September 1916, Page 7

EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE

gir j—In tile time of war is t lie standard "Equality of Sacrifice" n trim baßis for all members of the Empire; is each individual expected to do his oilier share in the defence of the conntry? 1 think that each and everyone of lis agreo that this is £0. 11, then, it is so, it is necessary for those who are fit for military service to and give that service, and onr Conscription lot practically holds that this is a

sound argument, and every nation in all times bold with that doctrine. There are.many,, however, who from some - disability are not able to givti their services to the Empire in a military capacity. Then it. is clearly thenduty to assist in other ways, if one man gives his life in the defence of the Empire, is it not lor those who have funds to supply the money to biiy the munitions to equip tliat man, so thai' he can meet our enemies not at a disadvantage? in our recently-floated war loan opportunity was given to many ol' those unable to serve to subscribe their funds. Many have not done so. Is a man's life not more to him than- the few pounds one is .asked to subscribe to the war loan ? Further, we are not a6ked to give this money, s but only to lend. Wo might well be asked to give it, as if one n\an gives his life surely his brother can give his gold. Which of lis does not value liis own 'or his son's life before his gold? We, towever, are not asked to give, only io lend at interest on the best security one can obtain. If we do not do tlis, where do we stand as individuals ? Another phase of this'quest-ion of "Equalitv ol : Sacrifice" is ilso brought out in the taxation proposals. It is laid down ae sound and equitable that a proportion of excess prolits shall be paid to the Sta<e.'• For those who havo benefited bv the war, is.it just that the extra money they have made should belong to them? Is it right that'one should give bis life, ur be maimed, while another si-ays at home in safety accumulating wealth? Really comnionfiense ' says that all profits made 'out of the war should'belong 1 to the State., '

Another point is, whether in times of war it is just that the man with an income of £2000 "or so should have the £2000 income that ho made previous to the war still regarded as the standard for calculating the excess profits. .'. Is £2000 a year necessary for the upkeep of his family? Has lie any right, to be living in luxury while thousands are starving, starving, too, because of a war that is in his interests more than in the interests of tlioso who have hot wealth? He has all to lose by defeat; the poor mail lias nobbing to Jose. It appears to me that if "Equality of Sacrifice" is a sound doctrine, then wliilo granting that ability and per' severance should. be rewarded by the modicum, of comfort, greater than for the spendthrift or waster, it in still necessary that the well-to-do must do tite needful, and the standard income must be based not on the standard in peace times; but on a standard necessary for tho upkoeping of his establishment in an economical way. Every pound over and a,bove this should. I think, he taxed; It nooms quito unsound to base the standard income on the basis of peace times. /When a nation is fighting for existence, the peace-time standard is- 1 thrown' aside. If oonscription of lives for military service in war time is sound, why not conscription of wealth of those who havo it? •

. In war time blie State says she requires men,-to fight; sho interlereß witli. our everyday existence; things tvo did we ore not allowed to do. aro made to alter our habits, our taxes are increased, and we all have to subscribe to the dootrine, "Everything in war timo must be put aside for tho State.' 1 Our individual' lieedfc are not to 6e considered 1 when our country calls.—l am, etc.; Ct.