Correspondence

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 225, 24 September 1935, Page 8

Correspondence

New Zealand and War

(To the Editor.)

. Sir, —Hon. W. Perry, of Wellington, recently expressed his views in the Legislative Council on the subject of New Zealand’s obligations under the Covenant of tho League of Nations. As this matter is at the moment one •f general and vital interest, I beg space in your columns to reply. Air. Perry is reported to have said that “as a member of the League, New Zealand was bound to provide her share of the force necessary to enforce the Covenant, assuming that all the other signatories to the Covenant agreed to enforce sanctions," to which he added later that he hoped the League would “punish" any aggressor nation. Is not this a misinterpretation of the text and tho spirit of the Covenant* Surely the Covenant does not imply that in the event of one n.-tion becoming an aggressor, all the other parties should fall upon her m force with the intent of punishing or crippling her. That was rather the spirit of the treatment moted out to Germany in I9IS-lU, and now' recognised as a grave mistake.

This somewhat bloodthirsty desire desire to “punish" a nation stands condemned by two facts, namely, its economic unsoundness and its injustice. Firstly, it is economically unsound because, as economists agree, the prosperity of oue country depends on the prosperity of ail, and viceversa; and secondly, to punish a nation is unjust not simply because it's vindictive beha .our which, by stirring up racial hatreds, does harm rather than good, but also because in dealing in this way with a nation it is quite impossible to distinguish botween the guilty and the uou-guilty, aud the real source of the trouble usually goes untouched.

In the present instance, wero the Italian Government actually to order the invasion of Abyssinia, it would be absurd to suggest that the great mass of tho Italian people were to blame. The majority, the crowds who are now vehemently clamouring for war and Abyssinia, have been the dupes of an intense barrage of propaganda, as even the few samples that have reached on; own news columns very plainly show. To harm these people purposely, to attack and “punish” them because they have been led into a foolish war by a foolish and arrogant tyrant, would be, I think, one of the many ways not to make for lasting world peace. Now',, the League of Nations exists for tho purposes of conciliation aud arbitration, aud for restraining the actions of aggressive Governments, and according to the Covenant it is .ex. for tho Council to decide, when tho occasion arises, what action, if any, it considers advisable to effect that restraint. United League action is not confined"to the use of armed force, in fact most of the members of the League (New Zealand included) as signatories also-of the Pact of Paris, are pledged not to resort to war (and tnererore to the threat of war) in their relations with one another.

I therefore wish to point out that the militant attitude toward the present situation, which some people so strongly advocate, is not implicit in out international obligations, but on the contrary definitely conflicts with present international law, and so shoulo be strongly opposed by all people desirous of establishing peace founded on justice in international affairs. Itaiy is exceptionally dependent on outside supplies of . essential materials, and the Italian Government has ±Ol years faced enormous and increasing budgetary deficits, and could not hold out for long against united economic boycott and passive resistence on the part, of the rest of the League. I suggest that even if action along these lines did not prevent immediate aggression in Abyssinia, it would be just as effective in ultimately compelling Italy to respect international law anti make restitution for the offence, while it would be far less harmful to millions of innocent people—ltalians as well as others—indeed to civilisation itself.

Decisive battles decide nothing really, except the horrible fate of the combatants aud the decoration of the victorious generals. This old custom oi pretending to solve the world’s economic difficulties by resort to a process of violent mutual destruction is meeting with ever-growing resentment anti disgust m public opinion the world over, and should no longer be tolerated in our national policies, nowever great the provocation may be.

The present situation is a challenge to the civilisation which we in „.ev, Zealand are building up in this fair land. Can we be civilised enough—aye, and Christian enough oppose this traditional and barbaric behaviour'? I for one will never agree to take part in war.—l am, etc., B. L. ELPIIICK. September 20, 1935.

One Man One Vote (To the Editor.) Sir, —According to Press reports the member- for Palmerston, Mr. J. A. Nash waxes eloquent in his opposition to adult suffrage being adopted in tonnection with municipal elections. He tells the world that at the local elections lie had four votes which he used for himself and some other persons (not Mr. Hodgens, surely). Perhaps some of your readers who are so accustomed to believing that wc live in a state of democracy arc not p.ware that this anomaly exists. Prior to 18S9 the property vote existed in New Zealand in regard to the election of members of Parliament. “Members of the wealthy classes by exercising six, seven, or eight votes at the same General Election turned the scales in a large number of contests in the colony’ ’ (Life and Work of R. J. Seddon). vJt was Sir George Grey who led the attack for manhood suffrage backed by Mr. Ballanee and Mr. Seddozi, and the injustice was -.remedied in August, 1889 so far as Government elections. were, concerned. Eor some

.this -measuro. was not •made to include municipal elections.

Just why is hard to understand. Antargument which can be used in favour of adult suffrage for Parliamentary elections must apply with equal force to municipal elections and vice versa. Our present method of municipal voting is, to say the least, undemo cratie. John Smith has one vote as John Smith. If he controls a business as John Smith and Co., he may have another vote. If he represents a dozen companies he as their representative may have a dozen votes. And this is how Mr. Nash holds up his end of the case. “Surely the peoplo who had properties and were subscribing a large proportion of the rates owing to tho size of their properties had some right to a say in local government." "Why. yes, of course. No one wants to deprive them of that right. They should have exactly the same right as those who had invested their lives in tho community—one vote—no more and no less. Otherwise, if they have plural votes it is not they who are represented but the business concern and a business cannot require representation. But to show the illogie of Air. Nash's argument. In Palmerston North one business concern pays about £6OO in lates. That registered business entitles one representative to a vote irrespective of his personal vote. Assuming that a dozen registered businesses each paying rates of £lO were represented by one individual, that individual would have 12 votes for £l2O rates, as against tho other business with only one vote for £6OO rates paid. Assuming a person held house property which paid rates of £IOOO ho would have only his personal vote which he would exercise as a ratepayer, as against two votes by tho representative of tho business paying £6OO (one residential one as representative of tho business) and thirteen votes by the representative of a dozen businesses paying a total of £l2O (one residential and 12 as the representative of the various businesses). Where then does the logic of Mr. Nash’s argument come in? If we cannot have adult suffrage, logically Air. Nash should, on his own argument support the principle of representation according to the amount of rates and not the number of registered businesses.

Also, if the property vote is right and just in municipal elections it logically must be right and just in Parliamentary elections. Why does not Mr. Nash bo consistent and advocato that reform? As a matter of fact, there is no logic at all in the present method of municipal elections. All persons in the municipality as in the State should enjoy equal rights. All must obey the same laws. All should have an equal right in saying what, those laws shall be. Because one person through inheritance, luck, opportunity, avarice or any other reason, happens to have accumulated more of this world’s goods, or more economic power than another, that does not justify that person’s title to greater political rights or representation. If democracy means anything it must mean a Government of the people by the people and for the people, not of the privileged few by the privileged few and for the privileged few. The Labour Party is to bo commended for. its attempt to remedy this anomaly and if this measure ,in not carried now it will be, next session, when Labour occupies the Treasury Benches.—l am, etc., V. A. CHRISTENSEN, 46 Heretaunga Street.