SEPARATION ALLOWANCES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 223, 8 June 1918, Page 8

SEPARATION ALLOWANCES

SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE AND RETURNED SOLDI BBS.

Replying to Mr. Seymour's comments on the attitude of the Second Division League to the question of retrospection, Mr. It. A. Armstrong, president of the league, 6tates thai the principle of retrospection has never been disputed by the league. The matter had been discussed; not by him alone as stated by Mr. Seymour, but at an informal meeting held in the Returned Soldiers' Association offices, at which four of the R.S.A. officers—Messrs. Harper, Batten, Seymour, and Fox—and three of the league executive—Messrs. Chapman, Neville, and himself—were present. The league representatives had then strongly urged the Returned Soldiers' Association officers- to prepare a definite scheme for putting the principle of retrospection into practice, because they knew from experience how indifferently the t authorities treated the assertion of a general principle. It was unfortunate that Mr. Seymour should couple the league with tiie Government in a charge of breach of faith with the married volunteers. The league was not in existence when the services of these men were accepted. It was the duty of Parliament and Government to see that the dependants of these men were properly provided for 'before accepting them for service. From the outset, at every public meeting he had addressed on behalf of tho league, ho had pointed to the fact that as citizens those now moving in the league, together with the whole of the people, were almost equally to blamo for not insisting on Government improving the conditions from the beginning; but the league, as an organisation that had only come into being early in 1917, could not be held culpable for earlier mistakes, nor even now for any general public indifference that might exist. It was doing its best to wake the whole of the people up to a sense of their very heavy responsibility regarding the wellbeing of the dependants of those' who had to go and of our soldiers generally.ln fairness to the league it was necessary to remind the public that although the pensions problem was | a matter directly affecting returned soldiers, the league had in ■ 1917 to carry through the whole campaign for an im-. n roved pensions scheme without any assistance from the Returned Soldiers' Association. The league for somo time had been urging the Government to have the whole of the 1917 grants of financial assistance, which had been reduced on account of the increased allowances, reviewed with a view to reinstatement and bringing up to a higher level, in view of the increased cost of living. This matter affected only the married volunteers, whom the R.S.A. accused tho league of neglecting, and there was now scope for the association to help the dependants of these men by adding the weight of its influenco to'tho request. It was not to tho best interests of cither organisation to carry on a public controversy based on any misunderstandings that might exist. Tho executive of the league would glndly meet the officers of tho Returned Soldiers' Association at any time. So fnr as the principle of retrospection was concerned, he could only repeat that the league entirely supported it, and had never taken up any other attitude. If, as Mr. Seymour had indicated, the Returned Soldiers' Association was bringing forward a scheme for the practical application of the principle, he felt safe in saying that the whole of tho federated leagues would support any sound proposal. So far as co-operation between the two organisations was concerned, the leagues throughout New Zealand had desired this from the start. Tho Returned Soldier.?' Association appeared to overbid. Ihe fact that many of those now movi;ig in the league wou.'d, after service, become members of the R.S.A. Tho carrying on of the league would, as time went on, be left more and more to those who were found unfit for service, and its activities, in common with other war organisations, would cease with the end of the war.