The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1895. OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 7443, 14 August 1895, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1895. OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Wβ have received from Mr Mark Cohen, editor of the Dunedin Star, a sheet containing a printed report of the evidence given by him when examined before the Old Age Pension Committee. We have read it with much interest, as Mr Cohen's connection with friendly societies renders anything he may have to say on the subject worthy of careful perusal. In dissenting from most of his conclusions, we must admit that there is a great deal to be said in favor of the view he defends, which is that a system of State pensions for aged persons would injure the friendly societies, and that therefore the proposal for State pensions is wrong. But there is a great deal to be said on the other side also, and a careful weighing of the arguments for and against must, in our opinion, tilt the balance well over in the direction of a system of pensions. Indeed, Mr Cohen appears to come to this conclusion himself, for although the general tenor of his evidence is against a general pension system, he several times admits that it is the duty of the State to provide for the aged and indigent who are outside the sphere of friendly society effort, and that he can see no objection to a system of State pensions provided it does not interfere with the friendly societies. An extract from the report will show the position taken up : —

You say that a Ptate oid-asra pension echeme is likely to hurt the friendly societies P—Most emphatioallr, if it is baaed on the broad principle of giving relief to every person in the oommuuity. But how is it going to hurt the friendly societies?—lt will discourage oar members at the most important period of their live*, as far as thoir csipacity to save is concerned, from continuing their payments when they find that the State will give an allowance to all and iundry -who may reach a certain use. I prefer to rely on the opinions of those who era our recognised guides and counsellors. The great friendly tocieties in England have intimated in conference that they will welcome any equitable system of old-age pensions which, without interference with the friendly societies in their work, shall provide for the large nuuibcr of p«raons who are unable to avail themselves of these institutions. I think that you will find, on enquiry, that that is the attitude of the friendly societies in this colony towards any State pension scheme.

If the objection to a State pension system were based upon individualistic lines, and the dread expressed was of the probable resulte of State Socialism as affecting the whole body politic, one could understand the distaste which it is alleged is felt by the friendly societies generally with regard to a pension scheme of universal application. But on the assumption that the State may interfere with individualistic tendencies—and the trend of most of our legislation is now in that direction —there cannot possibly be any objection to State pensions on the ground that they would interfere with the working of voluntary combinations. The only question of any importance is not whether existing institutions would be in danger, but whether to replace thorn by something else would do good or evil. Friendly societies are but means to ends, after all, and if the ends thay seek can be reached better by State effort, and if in addition whatever there may be of good in those ends can be more widely diffused by State effort than by voluntary combination, then by all means let the latter give way to the former if necessary. But we doubt the necessity. There seem to U3 to be no solid grounds for supposing that the initiation of a State pension system would necessarily injure the friendly societies. They are not primarily pension-granting organisations. Their principal aim is to enable their members to provide against periods of sickness, and until the time when—if ever that time arrivss, which we question—the State undertakes to provide medical treatment for all, and nursing and subsistence for all during sickness, there would be as great a need for friendly societies as there is now. On the other hand, the position that it is the duty of the State to maintain in decent comfort the aged and infirm among its members, has a great deal to commend it. At all events, we should like to see a reasoned-out objection to it, for if it were made, and the conclusions arrived at were valid, they would strike at the root of all forms of government which went beyond the maintenance of an efficient civil service and army, and would shut up Statesupported hospitals and refuges. It is doubtful whether the logical result of 3uch a contention would not be the closing of the schools also, for if it be not the duty of the State to prevent the aged poor dying from hunger and cold, it is difficult to see how it can be a national duty to maintain an education system.

The whole question is one of expediency—what answers be3t ? If it be expedient for the State to provide out of the general taxation shelter and subsistence for aged persons, then it is right to have a system of old age pensions. Indeed, we have such a system, only it is a very faulty one. Every refuge is a proof of this contention. The English Foresters, in a report quoted by Mr Cohen before the Commission, oppose State pensions. "We give their conclusions : —

Wβ fire further of opinion that no State system, or Btate-aidad system of old-age ponsioas, can bo equitable which is to be baeed on the conditions and necessities of persons unable to beoomo members of friendly societies; as such liability ia produced by many ouusas, some of which are avoidable and prsventible, and, therefore, ihould not constitute a claim for State pensions ; many are unavoidable from misfortunes and natural oauges, whilst others are for reasons whioh are discreditable and condemnable. For the persons included in the second claaa—those prevented from joining a friendly sooiety from unavoidable and proper reasons—we are of opinion that the sum at present nationally raised for tho reli.f of the poor, if economically and properly expended on tha pezsons for whom it is really intended, would be emple to meet all the legitimate requirements of the necessities of that class, and therefore a syatetn whioh would neoetsitato an increased taxation beyond and in addition to the sum now raised annually for the purpose of poor relief would not be, in the sause of the High Court's resolution, an equitable one. With regard to the third class referre i to— the vicious and tha criminal—no system th>*t would give them State pensions could p»?sibly bo equitable.

With regard to the first and second classes of persons referred, to, all that is urged is sufficiently answered by what we have already said. As to the third class, the vicious and criminal, the unfortunate part of the business is that our present faulty system of providing for the aged poor is chiefly devoted to them, for in prison or out of it the State supports both classes. The only people who suffer undor present conditions are those who, without coming under the category of "vicious and criminal," are yet by sickness, or lack of thrift, or periods of depression, stranded in their old ago without means of support. Thcso get a more or less ungracious support as " paupers "in our refuges. Under a system by which all workers were taxed to a small extent during their years of health and strength, they should be able to claim subsistence when aged, not as a favor, but as a right. IE friendly societies stand in the way of that conclusion, then friendly societies must go. But we do not believe they stand in the way. 'J hey serve a very useful purpose which would still require to be served if oldage pensions were established tomorrow.