THE WAR LOAN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17089, 22 August 1917, Page 3

THE WAR LOAN.

Sib,—lt is highly satisfactory that in your leading article of Saturday's issue you lay " a great deal of might" upon the fact 'that the Government is making a groat mistake in not deciding to throw upon_ current revenue, derived through taxation, a far greater share of the war cost than it is doing." Few of the -working classes fully reaJiso that, in taking this attitude, you are advocating the true course of equitable taxation. We are 'all agreed that every member in the community must share the burden of the war in proportion to his individual ability. Thi s implies that no one should be permitted to make money out of the nation's dire necessities. . Yet wo find our Government the greatest sinner in- violating this principle. We have already raised a local loan of £8,000,000, and with the new loan we shall have a .debt of £20,000,000, involving an annual fax of £1,000,000 to be paid by the public to the moneylenders who are to be freo from income tax. It is .clear that the moneylenders are going to have a good time at the expense of all the rest of the community. Why should this be? It could not happen if public opinion was against it; yet the public will declare that it has no say in the matter. The public is, however, easily imposed upon. Did it but know how the financial machinery operates to its detriment, it would speedily demand a change in tho financial method's of the Government.

Since the commencement of the war the pubho has been paying excessively high prices, and has thus contributed to the profit of a section in the community which u- , en "' Dled some to accumulate money which they are now about to invest in tho war loan. It is, therefore, clear that, had tho pubho been protected from exploitation, tho profiteers would not have been in the position to. advance war loans on tho scale they now are able to do. It further shows us how.one injustice creates another Had tho high prices paid by the public been a direct contribution to the Government, only a portion of £20,000,000 would now have been required l to be raised by loan. As it. is, the high prices have been a direct contribution to the pockets of the rnonoy 1-ndors, who are now about to be further enriched at tho expense of those from whom they have abstracted their unholy, gains. In the face of these plain (nets we find Sir Joseph Ward declaring "that to compel people to hand over wealth freo of interest for the service of the State is a form of legalised robbery." But :t may immediately be asked: Is it not a form of legalised robbery when people are forced to pay an excessive price for their food and other necessaries of life, when we know that such excessive charges are not made for the service of the State, but solely for individual and selfish gains? Is the Government not deliberately conniving at this robbery when it refuses to take steps to prevent it, or when it denies that it is a violation of Christian morality? I am aware that my remarks touch only on the fringe of great issues involved in dealing with questions of finance, but underlying all questions of finance we find' the moral obligation of the individual of supreme importance. Intensely difficult as the position of the Government is, wo find that .the same difficulties would confront every other

Government put in its place. It is, therefore, not by a mere change of Government that we are going to overcome our trouble. A change .in the moral conception of the people must first take place before any government can proceed to effect the changes necessary in our commercial system through which ail individual contributions to the war must take place. So long as the ruling classes dictate the policy of the Government and can see no wrong with our commerc'al system, so long must the oppressed suffer and want, but that is all the more reason why our spiritual guides should take a stand for righteousness's sake and help the workers to expose the crooked ways of the rich.—l am, etc., W. SrVEBTSEN. !