The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1921. DISARMAMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10886, 28 April 1921, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1921. DISARMAMENT

The report of the League of Natione Committee on disarmament problems chimes in very appositely with the comments of the London “Times” on the British Budget. Moreover, there can be little doubt that similar comnients on the Budgets of practically all other nations are being made, and will for long continue to be made aa often as occasion arises—that is to say, whenever and wherever Budgets are brought in. Tho post-war conditions, involving huge expenditure, are common to all nations. Common to all, also, is the post-war shortage of cash. While, therefore, there is, as is well known, a certain amount of. political and possibly of personal animus behind the “Times's” strictures on Mr Lloyd George’s Government and its Budget, it cannot be denied that in the main its criticisms are justified; that, indeed, taking them by and large, they are of very general application the world over. Of course, the statement that “everyone knew the (British) Government intended to drift towards national insolvency” must be taken with considerably more than the proverbial grain of salt. Only a Government of absolute nincompoops, if not of criminal lunatics, could bo genuinely and seriously credited with such an intention; and Mr Lloyd George’s Ministry certainly consists neither of the one nor of the other. But there is only too good ground for the comment that “the estimate of national revenue is quite unwarrantable,” and that “the amount can only be raieod by a crushing burden which will greatly retard the prospects of recovery and result in tho intensification of the deplorable eco-

nomic depression, driving millions of workless to wander the streets.” Already a million and a half are unemployed at Home, and the continuance of the present utterly crushing load of taxation might well so aggravate conditions as to double that number within the next few months. Well, then, may ‘‘The Times” declare, ‘‘lf the Government cannot reduce expenditure, let them make room for somebody who can.” The British Government, however, cannot unaided very materially reduce expenditure. It can undoubtedly do something by vigorous use of the departmental pruning-knife; for some departments became greatly overgrown during the war, and others, essential during the war, are now no longer needed. The Government can also do something by readjusting taxation. It can, for example, ease very considerably the burden upon trade and industry, and increase correspondingly the burden upon privilege and monopoly. It can also take the taxes off food and other necessaries of life—taxes which tend to force up the cost of living—and replace them by such a system of taxation as will stimulate the production of foodstuffs and other necessaries, and will thus tend to reduce the cost of living. This would mean that with lower money wages the workers would be quite as well off as, perhaps even better off than, they are now; while the reduction of the wages bill would enable British industry to compete to greater advantage in the markets of the world. Production would thus be still further encouraged; and that, again, should cut down the cost of living still more. It is, for instance, utterly absurd and absolutely unjustifiable on any even passably sound and honest theories of economics or finance that, while Britain’s unimproved land values are at least £300,000,000 a year, whereas that sum would more than buy out, lock, stock, and barrel, the whole of the land of New Zealand, apart from improvements, Britain’s land tax is only £600,000 a year as against our land tax, small even as it is, of £1,500,000 a year. Little wonder that land monopoly flourishes ini the Old Country like a green bay tree, and that the big land monopolists can afford to hold idle for sport some 26 million acres, or more than one-third of the United Kingdom. Nine million acres of this, a Royal Commission has stated could, and should be, reafforested, and if put under forest would employ directly and indirectly at least 600,000 men; while twelve million acres more consist of good cultivable land, and at ten acres to the family would support 1,200,000 families, or some 6,000,000 men, women, and, children. One can only glance in passing at the effect that the taxation of mineral rent 6 and royalties and of the value of unworked mineral lands, would have in stimulating the mining industry and easing the now constant state of tension between the colliery proprietors, the capitalists engaged in the mining industry, and the ’ miners. In the directions indicated the British Government could do at least something to reduce expenditure and much to encourage, in place of discouraging, trade and industry; much to reduce, instead of forcing up the cost of living. But the hugely-swollen expenditure upon armaments—naval, military, and aerial—offers by far the greatest opportunity for the application of the economist’s pruning-knife; and in regard to such expenditure the British Government cannot act- alone. For Britain alone to disarm, in a world armed to the teeth and striving all j the time to increase its armaments, would be simply suicidal. But if the great Powers—if what during the war and in the Treaty of Versailles were called the Allied and Associated Powers—can come together and agree, not only to disarm themselves but to set up an international police force strong enough to prevent any othernations from arming, then armsments—naval, military, and aerial—can be drastically cut down all round; and not only Great Britain, but all other nations, can very materially reduce expenditure. We welcome, therefore, the report of the Committee of the League of Nations that what is needed in regard to disarmaments is the acceptance of the one-Power standard by Britain and America jointly, and an agreement between the two regarding the number, size, and armament of the capital ships each should maintain. We also welcome the intrpduetion in the U.S.A. Congress of resolutions asking President Harding: (1) At the earliest practicable moment to invito Britain, France, Japan, Italy, and other Governments to participate in a military and naval disarmament conference at Washington; and (2) to negotiate with Britain and Japan for the reduction of armaments and the abatement of naval construction. Surely, after the very plain load given by the Committee of the League, President Harding will no longer hesitate to make a definite forward move towards bringing about a much-to-be-desired disarmament conference.