EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE.

North Otago Times, Volume CV, Issue 13931, 13 July 1917, Page 3

EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE.

SIR JOHN FINDLAY SPEAKS OUT. " '' ' " ■ I AN APPEAL FOB SOLDIERS, i (By Telegraph—Special to "Times.") WELLINGTON, July 12. Speaking during the debate on the Address-in Reply in the House of Representatives last night, after indicating broadly the lines upon which Government umlcr it National Cabinet should proceed, Sir John Findlay used some plain words whilst dealing with the question of equality of sacrifice, which, lie said, was the most important of the lines along which the Government should proceed during the present crisis. Sir John said that cqunlity of sacrifice emaiit that upon each should be cast as equally as practicable the sacrifices that war demands, To achieve that New Zealand had a long way yet to go, At present. New Zealand took a man with a i

wife and two children, earning (say) £5 or £fi a week at a trade or profession,' and forced him to the battle-front, allowing him fourteen shillings a week for his own needs, and allowing his wife and two children 38s Cd. He had to expose, and perhaps lose, his life. That, or something like that, was the sacrifice that the Government was enforcing now, and would still more widely enforce when the men of the Second Division wore called. That, then, must be the. datum line—the test of the sacrifice that must be insisted upon from those who remained in safety and comfort at home. What was the sacrifice a publican was asked to make by closing his bar at six o'clock, compared with the sacrifice of the man sent to the front;

and yet some people said that, if the bars were closed at six o'clock as a war measure, you must—in these times of dreadful national stress and financial strain—pay the publican compensation. A beautiful illustration of equality' of sacrifice! But the illustration did not stand alone. To many producers in this country, the war had spelt not want but enormous wealth; and when they were asked to make some substantial sacrifice through taxation, they howled like a broken bankrupt. Applying the datum line of the soldier's sacrifice to all other classes, Sir John said that by that means could be secured some approach

to tlie equality ot which 90 much was hoard, but for which so little was being done. No section of the community, said the speaker, had suffered less, nor profited more, by the war than the landowners. Xo section, therefore, could afford to do more by way of contribution to the means essential to the equality that was being urged.

Referring to the question of the early closing of hotel bars, Sir John said the people of New Zealand were now 'desperately in earnest about the reform. New Zealand was now far behind every other part of the Empire in restrictions, as a war measure, upon the sale of intoxicating liquors, A shining example had been set by all our Allies, by the Motherland, and by all the Oversea Dominions. Canada was dry from coast to coast (with the exception of the province of Quchce), a province which had done least to help the Empire in this great struggle. New South Wales had closed its bars at 6 p.m. So had Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. But in New Zealand there were still the same hours as prevailed before the war, All that had been done was to pass that make-believe.and restrictive sham, the Anti-Shouting Act. But if the plain and uniuistakeable will of 11 great majority of the people was a mandate to a democratic Government, then the National Government would be grossly failing in its duty if it did not resolutely and earnestly endeavour to pass through the House this session a six o'clock closing measure. The Minister of Defence in that matter appeared to be in a quandary, He declared emphatically against wot canteens as an evil to the soldiers, although such canteens could be put under the strictest military supervision; but he hail not yet maile his mind up to close the countless wet canteens which the public-houses really were, although they were under no effective supervision of any kind. If wet canteens even under the strictest military discipline were an evil, how could he escape the conclusion that the wet canteen of a public bar, without supervision or discipline, was not a greater evil'.' But in this country the question had passed beyond the region of controversy into a determined and settled popular conviction, and the speaker entreated the Government to so regard it.

Regarding the treatment of our soldiers in the field or discnarfe'ed from service, Sir John said that just as there should lie equality of sacrifice in the war, so there should bo some equality of treatment.of the discharged and returned soldier after the war. It was grossly unfair to heap benefits on one section of the men, while treating other sections ■with niggardly parsimony. Dealing further with what he characterised as the Government's tenderness to sectional interests, Sir John asked': "Do you think that our merchants have suffered from the war?" and referred to the evidence given before the Cost of Living Board or Commission, The legislation passed to protect consumers from unfair war prices had been administered most half-heartedly, While the Minister for Agriculture (Hon, Mr MacDonald) was.President of the Board of Trade, some genuine work was done; .but practically nothing was done by that Board under the Presidency of the Prime Minister, The speaker declared with confidence that since the war commenced the producers and merchants of the country had grown rapidly richer, while the cost of living had increased with, equal rapidity. The price of the necessaries of life had increased some 30 per cent; so that a working man on £3 per week could now buy about.onethird' less of these necessaries than.lie could for the same wage before the war, In other,words, the war had meant to him a reduction in his real wage of about £1 per week. Had the Government in any spirit of courageous determination attempted to remedy that position? Sir John said he feared they had