REPATRIATION OF SOLDIERS

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 4, 5 July 1922, Page 4

REPATRIATION OF SOLDIERS

. TO 111 EDITOR. Sir*—lf I conveyed to Mr. James Begg and Mr. B. F. Dutbie, members of the Otago District Expatriation Board, as 1 .apparently did,-in the article you published for me a fortnight or so ago, the impression, that I did not warmly, appreciate the very valuable. assistance they and members of other repatriation'boards had given towards discharging the country's obligation to the returned soldiers, then I most have expressed myself very clumsily^ - It is true mr main purpose in writing 'was not to reiterate tie eulogies that had been pronounced by the Prime Minuter, and by everyone else acquainted with the facts, upon the invaluable services rendered,' gratuitously and at great .' personal; sacrifice, by these gentlemen. Perhaps I was too-ready to take all this •for granted, haying seen with my own eyes the obligations under which the members of. the boards had placed the ■whole community by their efforts on behalf of the returned soldiers. I trust Mr. Begg and Mr. Duthie will believe that on this point I am writing with full knowledge and perfect sincerity-. Of course my critics are entitled to their own'"Opinion in thinking I am quite . mistaken' in believing r the work of the Repatriation Department could now be carried on mucE more cheaply and at { least as efficiently were it transferred to ■one of the permanent departments. But having examined the position again, carefully and certainly without any personal ■bias, I am more than ever satisfied my contention is correct. Mr. Begg and Mr. Duthie seem to imagine that if the work ' were taken over by the Advances to Settlers Department, for instance, the records and experience of the Repatriation Department would be loet, its sympathetic administration reversed, and all its kindly, helpful services discontinued. With the utmost deference to my critics I am bound tb say there is not the slight test shadow of a reason for this assumption. ' The policy of the Advances to Settlers Department towards the returned man still'would be dictated by the same kindly, patriotic authority that dictates the policy of the Repatriation Department now. Many of us may differ in one particular or another from the political views of the Prime Blinister and the Minister of Lands, but not one of us, I venture to say, doubts for a single moment the sincerity of their desire to, kelp the soldiera in every waypossible. It all resolves itself, therefore, into a' question of cost. Gould the services at present being rendered to the returned .< men be supplied more cheaply by one of the permanent departments than they are being suppliedl by the Repatriation Department. Mr. Begg and Mr. Dutbie, judging from their experience and observation in Otajro and Southland—where, I am free to admit, the local administration has been particularly good—think they could not. An examination of the accounts as a whole, however, makes it perfectly clear, that a very large' sum, estimated at many thousand pounds a year, would be saved by one of tho permanent departments taking over the •whole business. This would not involve the loss of the services of each v6hintary workers as Mr. Begg and Mr. Duthie. The advice' of these gentlemen, one of - the most * valuable assets of the Repatriation' Detpartment, would become one of the most valuable assets of the permanent de partment, to which the continuance of '■ the beneficent work were entrusted. It is not fair to suggest that a permanent '. department would be less well disposed "towards the returned men than a temporary department has been. It is an officer of a permanent: department that has been-controlling the temporary Repatriation/Department, and there would be no reason why the services of this gentleman should not be retained if the Minister thought that course desirable.

In conclusion,, let me just remind my critics that it was with the crying need for economy in administrative expenditure that I was chiefly concerned when I tlast wrote. This need looks even more urgent aftsr reading ths report of Mr.. Massey's speech ia the House of Representatives oa Friday than it did two or three weeks ago. When the Prime Minister reports a drop of over six millions an the last year's revenue, predicts a ■further drop of two millions this year, thinks the suspension of the payment of the sinking funds not altogether out of the question, dortbts the ability of the country to continue bearing its huge burden of superannuation, and offers little hope of any relief from the present crippling load of taxation, it is absolutely necessary that the pruning knife should be applied unsparingly where any ibranch or even twig of unnecessary ex- , penditure can be lopped off. That is the tlunt, hard fact before the country, and the country cannot afford to trifle with! it any longer.—l am, etc., YOUR CONTRIBUTOR. i • 3rd July.