RELIEF FOR THE NEEDY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 7, 8 July 1931, Page 8

RELIEF FOR THE NEEDY

ffflßmi M>T IMALIM

THE BOARD'S STATEMENT

(Contributed.)

A superficial consideration of tho Unemployment Board's policy of excluding from the benefits of relief work men who have money in banks or substantial interests in revenue-producing property .prompts the comment- that this is a "very dangerous attitude," "an unfair discrimination against those who have been thrifty," "there, is no encouragement for thrift, no, place for the thrifty," and other criticism equally destructive. The critics appear to have gone for their inspiration to the greatest of all authorities: "For unto every ono that hath, shall be given, and he shall have, abundance; but from him that hath not slfall be taken away even that which, he hath." But that is to assume that all those who "hath not" abused their,. talents, an assumption by no means warranted, because many thousands of) the unemployed owe their present condition solely to sheer misfortune or ill* health, and not in any degree to "wastefulness or extravagance. The Unemployment Board's view" point is exactly that of the party wh»; discovered in the desert two men dying of thirst. One of tho men had! money to buy water from the party, whose supply was almost exhausted, but the other was penniless. It was known ■ that he had never been thrifty, ..but would that justify his being left to die? The Unemployment Board realised as keenly as do tho critics that it^ is the States-duty to encourage thrift, for the more thrifty the population theeasier the burden of the State. But this was no time for meditation upon the various phases of political or domestic economy, or the possible menaeo to the fabric of the State. The board's dut} r was to offer succour to those 'in need, and if in doing that it-fractured some intangible social or economic law,,. the board has the satisfaction of knowing that hundreds of men, women, and, children benefited by its transgression.' The fact is overlooked that tho decision that relief cannot be given to] people with, savings is only of recent' origin; the policy was forced upon thai Unemployment Board by tho tremendous increase in the number of unem* ployed and the total inadequacy of.thaj funds to give relief to them. all. In! all seriousness it is asked: What would! the critics have done? Give more to! those who already had sufficient, andl allow the needy to starve, so that a. sacrosanct economic law should not boj imperilled? Or would they be justi. human beings, as were the members ofj, the Unemployment Board, and distribute the funds where they were most urgently required? The charge of penalising the thriftyj is as unfair as it is incorrect. Tqj argue-that the principle of no discrimination should be maintained in face! of the overwhelming demands, of the; unemployed is evidence of complete; lack of knowledge of the Unemployment Board's • and the Government'» problems in connection with this crisis, though why there should be that lack* with all the facts and figures laid on. the table, is more than a little disconcerting. .