LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume 79, Issue 24304, 19 June 1942, Page 2

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Electoral Reform Sir,—ln reply to Mr. T. E McMillan's letter re above, it is the last thing we want —anyone coming between the voter and his candidates. The present trouble is largely that there is no right of recall when members of Parliament do those things they promised not to do, and not do those things which they promised to do. But the real trouble is that it is a matter of voting for a partv instead of a trusty individual; and that party leaders have the privilege of appointing their Cabinet, instead of the whole body of members of Parliament electing them from among themselves. This is true democracy. H. C. Barker.

I The Ship Ironside , Sir, —I saw in the Herald a reference to the voyage of the Ironside. My Into father and mother, Mr. and 1 Mrs. John Sinclaire, and ray brother > John were passengers. My brother : -John, who died last January, was only a little toddler, but had a remarkable [ memory, and could recall different , happenings on the voyage. Captain j Hedley was the captain. I have in mv possession at the 1 present time a black ornamental scraper ; which my parents bought, after they i bought property in Epsom, opposite • Cornwall Park. This scraper was needed r for scraping the mud off shoes before wiping them- on the mat, showing the ' difference in the roads then and now. f The scraper was bought at a Queen [ Street ironmongers, Cruickshank and • Miller. . After leaving the boat my parents rented a house in Albert Street, somewhere near the Public Trust buildings; ! then they bought at Epsom. E. Olivf.b. Retrospective Taxation Sir, —Your correspondent. "Money to ? Burn," mentions a princely wage of ; £6 odd. If the Labour Government had . carried out its promise to prevent the ' r cost of living rising, £6 per week would > certainly have been "princely." Coin- • pared with the income of a large num- • her of small business men, your corres- [ pondent is on velvet. In addition to trying to live on a lot ■ less than that, we are taxed retrospec- ■ tively. The recent extra tax of 6d, ; which came into being in the middle [ of May, would amount to 6s for the ( remaining two weeks of the month on ' a £6 per week wage, and as the Govi ernment, per the 5 per cent cost of 1 living bonus, forces your correspondent's . employer to pay him 12s extra for the same period, he should not grumble. A small business man working on his own account and employing no assistants is taxed under the same heading, . from March 31, 11)41, which, to the end of May, is just 15 months, so that if he takes £6 per week, the same as the wage earner, he is indebted to the Government. by way of this extra 6d, the sum of £9 12s. Does anyone know of a more unjust law? Social Justice. That Legacy • Sir,—As Mr. Hamili admits that the £50,000,000 overseas funds in 1935 belonged to the banks and not to the National Government, any remnants of the "legacy" myth can bo dispelled by tracing the rise and fall of those funds. Mr. Hamili asserts that their rise was due to the good administration of the National Government and their fall to the bad administration of the present Government. (1) The overseas funds (in Txmdon, America, Australia, etc.), in December, 1935, totalled, not 50 millions, but 36 millions! This difference of a mere 14 million were not owned, left or spent by anyone. They just did not exist. (2) As this fund generally stood at about 20 to 25 million, the rise in those bank funds to 36 million was a rise of only 11 to 16 million to 1935. (3) As the Hon. D. Stewart warned his then colleagues, the forced exchange rate to 25 per cent piled up surplus and therefore idle exchange funds. Was | that good administration? (4) Imports in 1932-35 fell by 70 million sterling because our people could not spend; ;so exchange funds rose. Good administration ? (5) Agencies held back their profit balances in 1933-35, which formerly had been sent Home. The reason — adverse exchange. So those exchange funds again rose. Good administration ? J loins 3, 4 and 5 above account for nearly all of the 16 million by which those bank funds rose during the Nationalist regime, and not one was due to good administration. The story of the fall in those funds after 1935 must, owing to considerations of space, bo held over for another date. , Akk HoYAIi. i