"THE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.”

Southland Times, Issue 21428, 24 June 1931, Page 3

"THE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.”

To the Editor.

Sir, It is regrettable to note that your correspondent, Mr Fraser, M.A., of Dunedin, has stooped to the indignity of attempting to stir up sectarian strife. In his letter regarding “the Unemployment Act” Mr Fraser says “that he believed upon investigation that these class and sectarian exemptions have all been made o cover and include thq Romanist demand that its religious orders shall be exempt from taxation.” Mr Fraser would show greater intelligence if he made the investigation before formulating his beliefs. He would then, I venture to suggest believe differently. Mr Fraser has displayed extremely bad taste in discoursing upon a matter in which he acknowledges he has made little investigation and, therefore, cannot be qualified to express an intelligent opinion. If Mr Fraser will make those investigations he will see that the words Roman Catholic are absent. The words of The Order in Council dated December 12, 1930. on certain persons exempt from payment of unemployment levy are these: “Every person who is for the time being a member of a religious body whose rules forbid the possession by its members of any personal property except clothing and similar effects.” The words Roman Catholic are not mentioned. The Act itself irrespective of the Order in Council under discussion provides that any person not receiving salary or wages and not in receipt of income shall be exempt from the payment' of unemployment tax. Any intelligent person who can read English correctly will not construe the Act to mean otherwise than what was intended in the framing of it. Catholic religions come under the heading of people who do not receive salary or wages and are not in receipt of income. These religions, when they enter the monastries, give up all intercourse with the world and spend their lives in the vineyard of the Lord. They do not receive one penny piece year in year out for a life spent in work of self-sacrifice and selfeffacement. Their only reward is the plainest of food and the bare and plainest necessities of clothing. They certainly are amongst those people exempt from payment of the unemployment tax as all people not biassed nor woefully ignorant will admit. Mr Fraser evidently is of the opinion that Catholics are a very favoured denomination. It would indeed be a compliment to Catholics (who are in such an overwhelming minority of the population of New Zealand) if they could possibly receive even a slight portion of the favours that Mr Fraser evidently thinks they do receive. One would expect a man possessing an M.A. degree to have at least the faculty of sane reasoning. One is forced to the unwelcome knowledge that Mr Fraser and his friends “Black Watch Tartan” also “Fair-minded Tartan” are more concerned with stirring up bigotry than with the evils that beset the whole community through the Unemployment Act becoming law. Intelligent citizens all realize that the said Act is quite inadequate to cope with our serious unemployment problem, but they would not stoop to use the unhappy position that has arisen and all its cruelty as a cloak for a vicious attack on the Catholic Church in New Zealand. People who write as Mr Fraser and his Tartan friends have written have not charity, therefore, one cannot believe in the sincerity of their sympathy for those who are unable to pay their unemployment levy. They are more concerned with trying to force another injustice on the community by taxing people who have no connection with the world, who have no worldly goods or money with which to pay the said levy were it enforced. One is quite sure that what Mr Fraser and his Tartan friends desire is that we should go back to the methods of the dark days when religious persecution of Catholics was lawful. I am quite sure that the fact of the religious concerned being “Romanish” has a great deal to do with their concern in the injustice of the administration of the Unemployment Act. Yes, the Act is unjust, but why add one more injustice? Two wrongs, Mr Fraser, never make a right.

Religious citizens of all creeds erect and own handsome churches and colleges. They are all built to the glory of God and to further His works. The religious bodies have trust funds for the uses of their churches and schools accumulated by financial enterprise, thrift and largely through the sacrifices and generosity of their members. They do a valuable work (all of them) in the community and New Zealanders who are sincere and patriotic and really religious-minded applaud that good work no matter what the creed of the organization doing it. Only a fanatic and an ignorant person would say they were capitalists. Most of our worthy clergy of all denominations only wish that they were —they could then help to alleviate the awful want and stark tragedy that is far too prevalent in our midst. It is unwarranted and colossal impudence on Mr Fraser’s part to say “That everyone knows that the poverty of these religious orders is artificial and that they form with the hierarchy the richest corporation of capitalists and property owners in the world.” What utter nonsense and ignorance! and that displayed by Mr Fraser, M.A., of Dunedin. Nearly “everyone” is gifted with sanity. It is all plain sailing. If Mr Fraser will use his reasoning powers, he will find that the fury of the anonymous correspondents who are taking part in this controversy appears because they recognize "Bigotry” in a new raiment.

In conclusion I feel sure that I can state without fear of contradiction that Catholics would scorn to stoop to the petty tactics of Mr Fraser and Co., and that Protestants who are loyal and good religious people, “worth their salt” (to quote Mr Fraser’s designation for them) will be both ashamed and annoyed when they read that Mr Fraser, M.A., of Dunedin, has so far forgotten his manliness as to attack those who are above the pettiness and ranting methods of a small section of the population who display more zeal than intelligence.—l am, etc., "BRIAN BORN.”