SOLDIERS' ALLOWANCES

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 68, 18 September 1917, Page 7

SOLDIERS' ALLOWANCES

TO IBP EDITOR. . Siiv-^-The Second Division men, in all proposals, resolutions, etc., have never once raised the question as to stoppage | of allotments, and allowances for wives and children of men on active service. Do the men of the Second Division realise that their dependents will have to pay if they are. unfortunate enough to commit an offence (as the best of men aye liable to do at times, especially if they are hot-tempered) ? We all know that the discipline at Home is severe, that New Zea-landers do not take kindly to it, but why they canliot punish a man for his own misdeeds, and nbt his depend-. ents, is beyond any sensible person's, comprehension. My husband has been in the firing line many months and I ha-ve four little children (the eldest not five years and the youngest a few nWmths old). It is as big a problem to me to feed and clothe them and myself on allotment and -allowances as the submarine menace is to the British. What I would do if it were stopped for any offence of my husband at the front I do not know, except that I would be inclined not to submit quietly. Is this British fairness? While bur men are risking their lives at the front' their dependents have to submit to the high cost 6f living. At the same time w© are calling out about the empty cradles, bonuses for babies, etc., and the need to save' infant life. I am afraid many infants will perish if they have to pay for their fathers' misdeeds by starvation.—l am, etc., JUSTICE. 16th September. [Our correspondent is incorrect in her opening statement. At the conference the Second Division League held in Wellington in July last the following motion was carried: "That allocated pay and allowances shall not be affected by misconduct of the soldier."—Ed.]

io mi editor. Sir, —There is much talk going on at the present time with the Second Division and their dependents' -allowances. Cannot our Government do something for the First Division men wlio have got married? They have 'Wives iand sonic children. According to what I am led to believe, they have to make do with what the soldier husband can spare out of his 35s per week. Can this sort of thing be done,.honourably! The lowest maintenance allowance a Magistrate will inflict for the upkeep of an illegitimate child is 7s 6d per ■ week, yet many H'espeetable women are to be placed below this category. I do. not suggest that those who get married just before their husbands .sail, should have allowances. They do it as their last binding link, not for the want of money in all cases. Germans living in the country are each costing the Government 3s 8d pel- day up to 10s odd, according to last week's reports, is a young married man to go away to. fight and perhaps have to give his life knowing that his \yii e is getting nothing from the country he is fighting for) and enemy subjects are .living as they do, and indirectly receiving the equivalent from ;2Ss lip to £4 per week. —I am, etc.. FAIR PLAY. /JThe Post has previously urged that whatever increases are made in separation and other allowances shall apply to all dependents, irrespective of whether they are those of First Division (>r Second' Division men, and, further, Ijhat such increases shall be made retrospective asifrom. the date on which the, first men went into camp under the operation of the ballot. We. cannot see how' the fends of justice can be met otherwise. , It is obvious also that.both volunteers and ballot men should be treated alike in this respect.—Ed."]