CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 81, 6 April 1932, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

KEEPING CONTRACTS ' QUESTION OR" EQUALITY' \ (To the Editor.) Sir,—One of the things that has surprised me greatly during-the 'issue of the rights and wrongs o£ a general i eduction of interest and rents has been the attitudeVof your paper. To my'sense, the "Evening Post" has generally stood for I the ideal of the greatest good to the greatest number, and it comes to me as a , diotmct setback in my opinion of this , paper to find it stating a case and chami pioning such, a case in the interests of one class of the community. Capable editorials have appeared on the advisability, nay, the necessity, of reducing wages jn order that the producer may bring his costs down -and» perhaps enable him to carry on a little longer. The main argument, as I -understand it, put forward by you is that mortgage contracts must be inviolate. But surely, Sir, what is said to be for the good of one section of the people must also be good for all other sections, and if the income of the workers is to be ".reduced should it not follow that all other incomes should be reduced 'as-well, whether this income be from the work of one's hands or otherwise? After all we are all workers in a sense, all striving to. live a life according to our own ideas. Instead of fighting for one section, i.e., the mortgagee section, I consider that your powerful paper could do a great deal of good by not being quite so hard and fast to the letter of the law, "but, by taking a broader outlook on the situation' as /a whole, endeavour to bring about a spirit of unanimity betweca\aU sections. This letter is not written with any idea of criticising'your actions -over this particular matter, but .with the purpose of appealing to' your higher', ideals, which have always been so' 'capably expressed in your editorial 'columns.—l am, etc., . ■ ■ _ , EQUALITY. [The correspondent' has'quite misunderstood "The Post's"' attitude when he represents us as "fighting'for one section, i.e., the mortgagee." .We have 'certainly pointed to the injustice of reducing fixed charges during the > currency,, of a contract when times are bad,-seeing that these'charges wercnot increased during the currency of ..the contract "when times were good. It was held then—in fact, it was never questioned—that the contracts must run their course. But our principal argument has been that it is not in the interests of the community as a whole to declare that a contract may be interfered with. If such- interference is once accepted, the basis'for 'confidence in all trading transactions is destroyed, whether in buying and selling or" borrowing and lending. Our business system ;is founded on the principle. that if a definite bargain is made it must be kept, whether it is to sell goods or to lend money. If the borrower is allowed to' say he wiil not keep his part of a- contract because he finds he1 cannot make f.ull use jof the money, it is only a short step for the buyer to say that'he will not pay for the goods because he can now buy them cheaper or for the, seller to say he .will not supply because he can sell to better advantage than,-under his contract. Confidence rests on good faith, and if that foundation is destroyed the consequences may be serious to the community.—Ed.]