AN OPEN LETTER

Evening Star, Issue 17320, 7 April 1920, Page 4

AN OPEN LETTER

» TO THE RIGHT HON. W. F. MASSEY, P. 0., 'M.P., PRIME MINISTER. Sir, —You were elected as the head of the party which overwhelmed all others in the election of December, 1919. You were elected to represent' the people and govern for the people and by the people. Thousands .of electors voted for your party because they wished in the reconstructed period a stable Government. They voted so that one class would not dominate another class. They voted for the principle that it wotsld be tmsafe to be governed by tioss who have not yet in the main learnt to govern themselves. They wanted a cafe Government, because perilous times are ahead. Now, most of tho people of this Dominion are Buffering acutely because of the high cost of commodities. The man with a family ia not living—he is struggling in the main for a bare existence. You in votrr wisdom have provided the Board o? Trade and price-fixing boards to see that there is no profiteering, but -these are only palliatives, and not a remedy. The Dnnedin ' Star,' in a recent editorial, stated that the high cost of commodities is lending to Bolshevism, and as one of the people I can assure yon that this is only, alas, too true. There is an tindercurrent of discontent which, if not allayed, will lead tho' Lord knows where. The handwriting is on the wall, and the mild, orderly demonstration of 4,000 citizens of Wanganui ehows he who mns may read. On the one hand, you have a revelry of luxury ; on the other hand, yoii have a continual struggle to mate ends meet. This condition of affairs, cannot last something must break, the bend is already* apparent. Surely in their wisdom your Government can read the signs of the times. -At the present time is the commemoration of* the period when He suffered martydom on the Gross that we might live. What would Christ say if he came on earth and saw the inequalities now existing—would He meekly bow His head and do nothing? To-day, sir, broad acrea and wealth count for more than little children. I ask you, sir, to remember that the late world war was fought for the benefit of humanity and for the uplifting of Democracy—that those who helped (and we all did our part) might live decently and happily. Our ,sons, our brothers* out" sisters all fought for Ring and Country. They gave their all; went West cheerfully and happily to render service for the good of man and womanhood. The demand for them Was above the supply, and to obtain our proper quota we had to resort to Conscription. They went at a "fixed price," sacrificing pecuniary gain, leaving behind . beloved ones and all those prospects which made life worth living for. The dependents of these noble men and, women are to-day fighting for their existence because of what is termed "free market values" *' for all commodities. The producer and the commodity holder get what prices aro considered necessary so long as they do not profiteer. Without profiteering the prices are altogether too high for the mass' of the people, and the continual increase in waees makes confusion worse confounded. There are numerous opinions expressed as to the cause—such as inflation currency, the law of supply and demand, and that the standard of pay has been raised, and many other pretexts. Then, again, one is told that the cost of commodities Is world- ■ wide ; that we are better off than most. The law of supply and demand is a canard ; it is tho sheet anchor of shufflers I wishing to throw dust in the eyes of our people. If the law of supply arid demand governed, how is it, then, thai those who made the supply possible—i.e., our soldiers and sailors—went at rates considerably lower in most instances than their prewar value? The demand was insatiable, the supply inadequate; yet they went at fixed prices. Ail our farmers' produce was ma.io marketable because of them; all our imports were made .possible because of i them ; and yet we are told that the law of supply and demand governs. Law of demand and supply fiddlesticks. W T as it this law that governed selling values of goods in store when war broke out? Wasn't it a question of replacement—that prices were raised because when the war was ended the warehouses would be holdinc full stocks at war-bought prices? Has that position eventuated? Is -it not a fact thai, on the contrary, warehouses in the main are making as" great a pi-ofit now n,< they did in pre-war days? Where is all our war-spent wealth? Who have got it. prd what are they doing with it? If the law of supply and demand had governed we would know, be- , cause to-day the solSiers, sailors, and their relatives would be living in luxury mid have golden sovereigns instead' of sevHiing round for pennies. This " fair market value" will not. work, because it is not equitable, is not just, and works for only cne clars. whereas you govern for all - classes. Take hides as an illustration. - You have removed the "fired price" in N p w Zealand, and ns a result we have to pay 7s more for boots. Why? Because Germany in the Great War consumed her cattle and turned their hides into leather .. for war purposes. Her soldiers had to be equipped to fight onrs. and as a conse- | Qiience they had to have leather. To-day j Germany wants leather, and as a consej qi'enco yon aive th? fanner a " free mar- ! ket," end we because of Gcrmany'3 needs. Is this fair? Ik this equitable? Again, during the war period about 40 per cent, of our farms changed hands war prices. Consequently the • dairy farmer wants 3s 6d per lb this winter to I ninke things meet. He .wants a "free i market." so that hie war mortgage and | {he. other 60 per cent, of the farmers can j wax fat at the people's expense. Some cry out for prodaction and still , more production; but what incentive is ! ihe'o for producers when the people have at the present time to pay more !6r goods produced than they can afford to pay, and they have no guarantee that when production is maintained at- a higher level I they, will share in the increase? It has" not worked so in the past; why, then, in the* future? What is wanted, sir, is for you to show these that own wealth that they will have to_pay a eood deal more by way of taxation than" they do at present—that thoy will have to carry the burdens of those at present unable to bear them. Sheep., cattle,, broad acres, warehouses, etc,, will have to give way to tho children of necessity. One does not want to tax wealth to do away with i initiative and incentive to earn wealth; I but, on the other hand, tho maes of the ' people have lost all the. initiative they i had because their firstborn—in many in- | stances— -hp.e gone West. They have the i incentive, but are powerless to act. j Cannot you see, sir, that unless you do I something that counts, that unless yon provide remedies instead of palliatives, that all wealth, will of necessity be insecure, and this insecurity will be of the wealthy people's own making, because to protect, their own they should help yon to solve the difficulty? The need! is great; will yon meet the need? Will you realise your responsibilities to the people as a whole,-or do you wish to see this land of ours awakened as it never has been, not perhaps by intensive strife, but by r»sans. which perhaps may not be palatable to those who, like me, envy the wealth of no man, buf who are ong of the " withonts " and hear the murmurings of the. discontents? And 4,060 peonl? don't murmur without a cause God" forbid the effect! To-day it only wants s strong man to appear to make trouble. You will hestrong enough to stem the tide if you take the matter In hand early and obviate the necessity for stern measures, in order that the People may obtain your vaunted ' "equare deal"—l am, etc., Note i>r An,. Wellington, April 5.