MEN OR FOOD

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 15, 17 July 1918, Page 7

MEN OR FOOD

10 THE EDITOR

Sir,—With reference to your leader in last night's Post in connection with the statement made by Sir Thomas Mackenzie as to New Zealand's part in the war, in all sincerity I would like you, for the information of myself and your readers, to give plain answers to ,the following questions :— (1) Is it a fact that New Zealand has, or will have, large quantities of foodstuffs which she < could send to Great Britain if the shipping were available? (2) Is it a fact that America has more men available for the Western front than she can find shipping for? (3) Is it a fact that for one trip made by a New Zealand transport, an American transport could make six trips from America?

If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, and I think they must be, surely by all the rules of common sense it would be better (in the | interests of winning the war) for Now Zealand to devote her attention to foodstuffs and for America to concentrate on the men. If it really is men that are wanted on the Western front, and an American transport can make six trips to one trip made by a New Zealand transport, would it not be better (in the interests of winning the war) for America to have the transports ? If Great Britain really is in dosperate need of the foodstuffs that New Zealand can send, would it not be better (in the interests of winning the war) for New Zealand to concentrate on, those foodstuffs ? Although you are always so ready to advocate the sending of all the men possible, I have never yet seen you endeavour to deal with the above-men-tioned queries, and I can assure you they form common talk at the present time.—l am, etc., COMMON SENSE. 16th July. ; [We have dealt with this question in our leading columns.—Ed.] TO TDB EDITOR. Sir, —I read with great interest the leading article in yesterday's Post, but, whilst agreeing with your strictures on the usurpation by the High Commissioner of functions only properly pertaining to the Government of the day, I think a little ventilation of the subject matter of Sir Thomas Mackenzie's remarks would be of considerable educative value to the community, especially to such a community as we find here, , which remains, after four years of war, apparently blissfully ignorant either that such a thing exists, or of the conditions prevailing in England ana Europe.

There is nothing new per se in the High Commissioner's speech—the. greater importance of large quantities of food over small numbers of men was a common and fruitful source of conversation in England two winters ago, and, for my own part, I have always held strongly .to the view that whenever the position became properly understood, that is, dissociated from mere patriotic sentimenv and silly talk about "the last shilling and the last man," inexorable economic reasons would decree the adoption of tho policy now publicly put forward by Sir Thomas Mackenzie.

Looking to the fact that we live nt present some twelve thousand odd miles from the front, that the U-boat campaign, has enormously crippled our shipping, that every man who leaves this country not only takes up eight tons of shipping space (much more profitably devoted to food), but leaves a blank behind him in the sense that there is one producer the less, and to the more important fact still that the large cities ol England and Europe are on the verge of starvation, I am of opinion that the time has arrived for a revision 1 of our policy—for a revision, indeed, of the policy of all distant oversea possessions which are food-producing. Even now. the potential reserve of men for future reinforcements has come down to 60,000, and -will be reduced by medical examinations and appeals to perhaps 20,000 —so that, nolens volens, our policy will have to be reconsidered if the war lasts over next year. Do you not think, sir, that it would bo safer to reconsider that, policy now ? The sons of New Zealand have covered themselves with glory on many a stricken field—it is now time for producers, voluntarily or under compulsion, to do the same.—l am, etc., ' EBNEST W. MUNTON. 16th July.