NEW ZEALAND'S PART

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 111, 13 May 1935, Page 8

NEW ZEALAND'S PART

(To the .Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent who styles himself "An Empire-minded New Zealander," in his latest, appears to be still confusing with iSyalty to the Crown a blind following of the English Government into any war in which'it may become involved. He appears to be unaware that New Zealand is no longer a Crown colony, but is now a selfgoverning Dominion with the constitutional right (and responsibility) to live her own life without control from any other part of the Empire. We quote' again the words of Mr. J. H. Thomas: "No Empire Government can involve another in war." It is therefore hardly necessary to point out that it is possible for New Zealand to remain absolutely neutral while England is at war and still be perfectly loyal to our Constitutional Monarch. , In view of these facts, it is entirely unreasonable to infer, because we in New Zealand are loyal to our beloved King, that we are therefore anxious to send our sons across the seas to be slaughtered on foreign soil at the behest of another Government On this point your correspondent is, of course; entitled to his own opinion, but that his view is not shared by many loyal New Zealand subjects of King George Vis very certain.—-I am, etc., ■ . ' : ■ . SELWYN KING, > National Secretary, the New Zealand Christian Alliance for the Prevention of War. Wellington, May 11,1835. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I would be glad if you would kindly permit me to again utilise your space in an endeavour to enlighten Mr. King on the salient points of my previous letter. That this communication was unconvincing reflects no credit on the ability of the newly-formed War Prevention Alliance to reason, and act on sound practical lines. The Reput* lican ideas which have been the keynote of all his previous correspondence give one furiously to think that a "British Empire" of which we are, or ought to be, proud to be a unit, has no meaning. In the matter of constitutional right of the individual, , the direct implication made by Mr. King in raising this question was to the effect that by strictly adhering to such right, the1 result would be a unanimous vote in favour of non-participation in war which involved Britain. It staggers the mind to conceive the disastrous results which would ultimately follow such a declaration. One result is obvious; and sufficient proof of the-precarious position in which this country would find itself, and that is: we should be refuting Britain's protective influence, .since we could not expect assistance from her in our time of need, and we should then "be in the market," as it were, for any territory-seeking nation stronger than ourselves. Visualise a "Hitler" rule, or Soviet or Japanese regime. The mind cannot •, be reconciled to tolerating such a state of affairs. Does Mr. King •and his associates realise that in the "Empire" state any nation which would war with either Britain or her colonies has to contend with the combined forces of the British Empire,,>and this fact alone is a^ vitally important war-preventative situation? In my previous letter I conceded Mr. King his point in regard' to the exercise of our individual' constitutional right purely with the object of emphasising the necessity of a careful sum-ming-up of all angles of the situation, prior to casting such a vote. I will go further and assume the result of such a vote declares, 'as Mr. King infers, "We stand aloof." , What would Britain's reactions be? And ' vice-versa, what would our reactions be if Britain adopted that attitude to us if we were placed in her position, i.e., at war? The best illustration which can be supplied is to ask any human being his feelings when his best friend or blood-relation refuses -aid ■in time of vital necessity. An analysis of this is too lengthy, but condensed would read: "My faith and trust have been destroyed, and should the occasion arise where the circuhistances are reversed, I would be justified in remaining aloof." That is human nature. In dealing with the "absorption of our 'surplus' products;" Mr. King has shown himself to lack even an elementary knowledge of economics. Briefly, the universal economic constitution is fundamentally based 'on trade ofc barter, and the difference between the total imports and total exports of any country represents funds available for further production' (or literally " gross profit). I would firstly refer Mr. King to the Government statistics to ascertain this balance in our favour, and I •would then ask him to deduct from this amount the total of all our exports to Great Britain, and then sum up the country's financial position. An excellent simile is that Mr. King's employer, (the producer) loses his main market for his goods. The result: he is no longer in a position to support either himself or Mr. King because no funds are available for further production. If he continues producing without his goods being absorbed, bankruptcy is inevitable, and the industry ceases. New Zealand cannot absorb her production, and, especially since this industry has, and is being expanded, the safety of the main market is obvious, in fact, existence depends on it. If we are not prepared to assist in safeguarding our own vital interests we literally lie down and die without any effort at sustaining life. Mr. King! Our dependence on Britain cannot be underestimated in either protection or trade. ." If we lose both t _ Finally, the Kellogg Pact.' Thai New Zealand signed this as an independent nation^does still not alter the fact that a treaty once violated, automatically ceases to be binding, and my iUustra tion, that the British nation^of which owi££ a unit) ha* always *diuwita obligations, was made with the object of pointing out to Mr. King that Britain and New Zealand would be the last to violate their signature. With regard to my fear of public opinion let me assure Mr. King I have nothing to fear, nor am I an authority on such opinion, and his invitation .to me to ™° £"1? With his aUiaAce ™**™ on me the honour of being devoid of ordinary powers of reasoning^ I do eiS'tne- SLfiSf^t ofTe existence and those who are dear to ?* bßh race means more to me than words can convey.—l am, etc EMPIRE-MINDED