MR MASSEY’S CRITICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18573, 27 November 1920, Page 8

MR MASSEY’S CRITICS.

Mb Mabset made use of some rather strong language in Wellington yesterday when he accused " one or two newspapers” of “ attempting to kill or prevent the loan from being successful ” and of being guilty of conduct " grossly unfair and unpatriotio.” From our recollection of various newspaper comments on the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Loan it seems clear that the two journals " outside of Wellington ” which have so aroused tho Prime Minister’s ire are the Oliristchuroh "Press” and the "Otago Daily Times,” wliich havo shown considerable hostility to tho war-time principle of compulsion as applied in connection with the flotation of loans in time of peace. That our readers may judge whether tho charge of being "grossly unpatriotic and unfair” can reasonably be laid against these two journals, we propose to give a few extracts from their editorial pronouncements on the subject. Dealing with the subject of compulsory .loans ns a matter of abstract principle, the "Press” said in July last:—"lt ought to be sufficient to say that the proposal is confiscatory in character. There is no difference between taking a man’s (pods at less than their market value (assuming that no special circumstances exist) and taking a man’s money at less than its market value. . . . That the Government should propose to continue its powers of compulsion in this matter is a striking piece of evidence of the drift of the public from tho safe moorings of sound principles, for if the public had not so drifted, such a proposal could not be put forward.” When the present loan was first issued the " Press ” renewed in comment on the concrete proposal its objections to the abstract principle. "We rogret,” it said "that the Government lias thought it necessary to retain in its now loan Bill the compulsory provision that was a disagreeable feature of several recent loans.” Our contemporary went on to remark that the degree of compulsion was modified in this instance by the fact that the Government had power to take only tho equivalent of one year’s taxation, instead of tho equivalent of three years’ taxation ns in former cases, but it gave a further objection on the ground that " the Government takes power to force the taxpayers to subscribe considerably more Gian the amount for which authority is asked. This is wholly wrong in principle, and the Government, wo thin];, should oven now relinquish a power for which there is no longer any excuse.” This is fairly vigorous criticism, but it is mild compared with the comments of the " Otago Daily Times,” which, referring to tho issue of the present loan, said, among other unfavourable things: “ A large class of investors which could be brought within the compulsory clauses would be paid a rate of £3 8s 9d per cent on their investments, and such a rate cannot in any reasonable sense be termed fair. . . . It is necessary to point out that recent Australian, loans have been and aro being raised on. terms which are more equitable to lenders. The recent Commonwealth Peace Loan of £25,000,000 was raised at 6 per cent, free of State income tax. . . . Possibly the least desirable feature about compulsory loans, however, is the fact that individual judgment is nullified. A business man may conclude in certain circumstances that tho object or method of expenditure contemplated is unsound, but he is not allowed to exercise any judgment in the matter for the reason that compulsion is Introduced.” It may be admitted that such criticism was not calculated to recommend the loan to the business sense of inrestors, but it is difficult to see how any conscientious journal, holding the compulsory principle to bo WTong under - present circumstances,

could avoid the duty, unpleasant though it might be, of pointing out tho injustices wrought by tho application of the principle. Certainly such comment ought not, in tho minds of reasonable men, to have laid them open to charges of " unfairness ” and lack of patriotism. It would be a very shoddy sort of patriotism wliich consisted in backing a political loader in a financial policy which was conscientiously believed to be wrong, and it will be a very bad day for this country if a Prime Minister or any other sorvant of tho State is allowed to buxk criticism by the cheap retort that his opponents are not patriots. For ourselves we see nothing very dreadful in the criticism to which the loan and the principles underlying it have been subjected. Had similar criticism been applied to tho terms of a loan floated abroad the critics might havo been accused of fouling their own nest, but this is entirely a domestic matter —a question of equity between the Government and tho taxpayers—and we can see nothing unpatriotic or unfair in such criticism under the ciroumstanoos hero and now obtaining. Indeed our own comments on the subject have been very much on the same lines as those of our Reform contemporaries. Mr Massey has promised a' further reference to this subject and we hope that when the occasion arises ho will use it to withdraw stricures which were not by any means warranted, and to apologise to those newspapers of his own political following who have been honest enough to disagree with his methods.