"NEW ZEALAND'S PART"

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 18, 20 July 1918, Page 4

"NEW ZEALAND'S PART"

TO THE EDITOR. g; r? —Before some of your cohorts of tho jingoistic, senseless, flag-waving class prepare to annihilate with their vapourings your two intrepid correspondents,

"Common .Sense" and, E. W, Mimtou, may one of tho long-suffering public, whose true views yon at times fail to correctly interpret, venture to say thathe cordially endorses the views of your above-named correspondents, and regrets that you have failed to give that reply which their thoughtful letters merited. To sum up your leading article in reply, it would appear that, whether right or wrong-, you consider that New Zealand must stick to her present course, without stopping to think or take stock of what she is doing, and that all because you fear that, by varying our policy in keeping with present:day needs, we may be "discredited in the eyes of the world." It. is a wonder to me that you did not conclude your article with the quotation : "Yours not to reason why, yours but to do and die," etc. Seeing that you have opened the subject, and others are asking questions, may I ask you a few also? , (1) Who did you dine with before you indited the article above criticised? Was it by any chance one of the uniformed gentry connected with our military camp 3 who, for reasons best known to themselves, are never .tired of demanding "men and more men," regardless of every other consideration?

(2) Do you mean, to dispute the accuracy of Sir Thomas Mackenzie's statements : Firstly, as to what this little country of a million inhabitants has already contributed in man-power; secondly, that tho strain is now beginning to tell in New Zealand; and, thirdly, that we have good reason to thank the Almighty for America's aid, in that she is exceptionally situated to supply unlimited men, and that quickly, whilst we, on the other hand, are more particularly able now to concentrate our efforts upon .production of foodstuffs and raw material? .

(3) Did you overlook the fact that in the same issue as your article of 15th July, it was clearly set forth under the heading of "Second Division" that, including Class E—men with four and mora children—we have now only a total of 60,000 men available, which at present rate of rejections may easily be reduced to 25,000 fit men?

(4) In view of the facts, and what New Zealand has already done, who would have the temerity to say that we would be "discredited," or that the successful prosecution of the war would, be jeopardised if wo now, in the light of reason, determined to sanely face the position, and thereafter contribute to war necessities otherwise than by man-power?

(5) Has not our National Government already intimated that it is essential in the interests of the war and this Dominion's ability to meet her obligations connected therewith, that "production should"be maintained"?

(6) Why, then, are we not organised towards this end? <

(7) Does not the tenor of your article savour somewhat of a breach of the "political truce" when you couplo with Sir Thomas Mackenzie's remarks Sir Joseph Ward's former pronouncement that "we shall have to consider how much further this country can go in sending men at all"?

I am sorry, Sir, that in spite of your injunction to "let, us clear our minds of cant," that neither of your articles display any evidence of your personally having succeeded in doing so. To my mind, the true patriot is one who courageously faces the facts as we know them, and manfully proceeds to set his house in order, regardless of what carping critics or the world may say. It is the easiest thing in the world to indulge in the flag-waving process of ignoring tho said'facte, and dubbing as self-interested or unpatriotic those more thoughtful members of the community who prefer a more self-reliant policy of guarding against our taking a course that will render us incapable of successfully carrying out our present obligations, not only to tho men who have been privileged to do the actual fighting as well- as their dependents, but also to the Mother Country, which has already given us so much assistance that it will be to our shame if we have to ask for more. The loudvoiced patriots are generally those who, whilst bragging of "our part in tho war," would pass on to posterity our financial obligations connected with it, instead of following Great Britain's example of already taking steps to liquidate it as far as possible in this generation. I am one of those who believe that wo cannot do too much for those who have done the actual fighting, yet there are those who, whilst fixing a very decided limit upon what we can do in that direction, cannot on the other hand see any necessity for recognising any limitation to what we can do in the way of manpower. Moreover, the relative valua "as fighters" of such men as we have remaining, as against their utility as "producers," is apparently never considered.—l am, etc., THOUGHTFUL. 17th July.