MORTGAGE PROPOSALS

Evening Post, Issue 36, 12 February 1935, Page 8

MORTGAGE PROPOSALS

LEGISLATION AND ITS EFFECTS (To the Editor.) Sir,—The tone of Mr. T. O. Haycock's j letter in your issue of the 9th instant was obviously sincere and I am sure |he has no wish but to see the right thing done, but as one who differs fundamentally from his viewpoint I should like to make an addendum to your postscript, in an attempt to show how people can in all sincerity and with no selfish motive disagree with Mr. Coates's schemes for extricating this country from its burden of difficulties. To begin with, to my mind it is so much humbug and eyewash to say that the practical effect of the National Expenditurel Adjustment Act, the Relief Legislation, and the high exchange has been to save the country as a whole and the primary industries in particular, from disaster. No doubt it is a most useful sop to those who are somewhat shaky on the ethical rights involved to say that what is necessary in the national interest transcends every; other consideration, but, in my opinion at any rate, the first and last effect of the measures I have referred to has been the conservation of vested interests. I maintain that for every farm that would have been vacated had contractual rights under mortgages not been, interfered with there would have been ten potential farmers ready to take up the vacated land provided that taking its production capacity over an average of good and bad years that land showed a reasonable prospect of producing a living. lam not arguing whether or not some form of moratorium may not have been desirable but I do maintain that if contractual rights had not been, interfered with very little hardship would have been caused. - ... From personal experience I can say that in the majority of : cases mortgagees are willing to go out of their way to assist mortgagors who are in difficulties, in other cases they know that it is much better'to keep a competent man in possession with a hope of winning through rather than turn him out, and in very few cases are mortgagees really oppressive. That is, however! by the way, my point being that this country would not have been financially in one 'whit a worse position if there had been no relief legislation, and I am prepared to argue that actually without that legislation it would have been in a far healthier position. With regard to the high exchange, the arguments for and against have been thrashed out ad nauseam and all I propose to say is that I havei always thought and still continue to think that it constituted an unwarrantable and discreditable piece of interference on the Government's part. No doubf Mr. Coates would say that to make that statement I must be actuated by selfish motives, but for the life of me I cannot find out what those selfish motives are. I am not an importer and own no bank shares. I have close friends and relatives who are farmers, and as a professional man a not inconsiderable part of my income is derived from work given to me by farmers. Similarly with this proposed Mortgage Corporation Mr. Haycock produces the stock argument that if you oppose it you must be actuated by selfish motives. He says, "I have read of deputations waiting on Ministers from every interest represented in the Chamber of Commerce report, and they all know if primary industries fail they all fail. Where do investors- get their money from? Has ■ it-not come originally from the land?" ..Does Mr. Haycock honestly! suggest that the organisations which were responsible for the critique on the proposed Mortgage Corporation must one and all have been actuated by .selfish motives? Such a statement seems to-me to be like Macbeth's attempt to place the guilt of Duncan's murder' on the -drunken servants "against nature." We all know that the prosperity of this country is bound up with the welfare of the primary] industries, and why a number of organisations representing business interests should write to . cpndemn a scheme for bringing prosperity to the primary industries is, I think, more than Mr. Haycock can explain. The only explanation that I can give Is j that1 either the business interests are intent upon suicide, or else the proposed scheme is unsound. I do not propose to. add 'any more except to say I read Mr. .Coates's pamphlet before the committee's report was made and that without in the least doubting Mr. Coates's sincerity I came to the honest -conclusion that the pamphlet was full of dogmatic statements which to my mind if not downright wrong at least admitted of doubt and that his proposals were in the main unsound and dangerous. In holding that opinion I wish to make it clear that I have no grudge against Mr. Coates personally. I- take him to be a man of courage and determination who genuinely desires to do what is best for» the country. . Butcourage and determination united" with wrong principles may prove disastrous for ill concerned, and for that reason and no other I oppose Mr. Coates's proposals.—l am, etc., • • ' j _> • B. ■