THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3149, 30 July 1917, Page 7

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Sir,—lf you will kindly give me the space) I desire to say that "it 'was with great pleasure that I read the views plaoed before your readers by Mr. von Haast in his campaign for efficiency and the better organisation of tho resources of this country. The reading of such constructive, well-thought-out ideas ' at the present time tend to thoughtful consideration of problems that lire becoming more acute every day, and I consider great praise is duo to Mr. von Haast and to The Dominion for giving the space for publication. It appears strange to.nip that one of your correspondents, Mr. I. W. Manton, should take exception to tho articles, and as Mr. von Haast has not replied to the letter it would appear that he considers tho criticism to !>e of an innocuous character. ! I would, however, like to mako a reply, to the letter mentioned, and to refer to parts cf the letter which are left to the inference of your readers.

Mr. Manton states in his letter "the publiic is a little fickle-minded at times, and liablo to be led astray by the false cries and issues raised by tho small coterie of interested politicians etc." Why this remark? I have no recollection of Mr. von Haast having appealed for political distinction, or of having sought prominence on local bodies or associations, i

Again, Mr. Alanton states: "I do not question Mr. von Haast's loyalty, but it seems to me a strange way of showing it." Mr. Manton, in. his lengthy letter, might have explained his meaning. Does he mean loyalty to King end country, loyalty to the National Government, oi- to loyalty to' convictions? Rather a pity Mr. Manton did not make his meaning clearer. I give him credit for not intending the words to be considered either lis gratuitous-magnanimity or gratuitous impertinence. The only argument as far as I can trace as being; offered by Mr. Manton in his letter against tho organisation of our population, male and female, is' in his statement that "he thinks that ho is right in saying that there wore prior to the war something like six million more women than men resident in the British Islea." I would refer Mr. Manton to Whitakers 1917 Annual for the actual statistics at last census, and he will find that the excess population of females over males is shown at about one and one-third -million, a verv far call from six millions. If Mr. Manton is in the habit of forming conclusions without going into facts closely, he might unintentionally at any time do a cause or person some injury. Might I ask if the National Government have in tlv*ir legislation always proved themselves efficient and above criticism? We hovo income tax and excess war profits legislation, by which a person earning, say, ,£6OO per annum, can bo called upon to pay more taxation than a person in the same line of business earning .£I2OO per annum. To my mind, a Government thai can eunct such a law requires watching, an,d thinkers who are willing and able to suggest equitable working theories for uonsideration deserve our thanks.—l am, etc., July 27 ' XYIZ -