SOLDIERS' GRATUITIES.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 September 1919, Page 4

SOLDIERS' GRATUITIES.

The disorder which prevailed at Wellington when a deputation from the local branch of the R.S.A. proceeded to interview the Premier and others at Parliament Buildings on Wednesday, is greatly to be deplored, for it places the returned soldiers as a body in a false | position and may alienate public sympathy instead of stimulating it. The secretary of th| New Zealand E.S.A. has promptly repudiated the claims put forward by the deputation as being indirect, and apparently intentional opposition to the declared policy of the association at the Dominion Conference. This is only what might have been expected, and will be all the more welcome in. that it accords with what must bo the genwal feeling of the public. He rightly summarises the position as being contained in the question: What constitutes a square deal for the soldiers? The Minister of Defence has had the benefit of the views of the R.S.A. as expressed at the Dominion Conference, which democratically represents the whole body of returned soldiers throughout the Dominion, whereas the deputation consisted only of AVellington men. This has to be distinctly understood, otherwise the New Zealand executive will not only be compromised by the precipitate action of the Wellington branch, but will have to bear the odium attaching to the rowdyism. The secretary of the association makes a very strong point when ho states the presumption is that gratuities on the scale proposed by the deputation would be regarded as the full discharge of the State's responsibility in respect of payment for services, pensions for suffering and disability and compensation for economic disability and lobs of opportunity, and he gives a timely reminder that the relation of the gratuity as compensation for loss of opportunity to the operations of the Repatriation Department, which largely exists for the same, purpose, appears to have been overlooked. It would possibly have j prevented any misunderstanding if the Minister of Defence had clearly stated at first the exact purport of the gratuities, and then it would have been possible for an approximate estimate to be formed as to the amount that should be given. When rates of pay and allowances were fixed they bore a certain relation to pre-war wages, and while the latter have risen appreciably, the sol--diers' pay remained stationary. Presumably, however, the gratuity has no relation to pay, but is a bonus for services, and, as such, should be at a flat rate. To be logical, it should start at a minimum for the latest enlistments and be increased on a sliding scale up to the main body men, on the principle of the longer the service the higher the scale of the gratuity, for it is obvious that the earliest volunteers have suffered the greatest loss of income. No gratuity, however large, can compensate the thousands of returned soldiers for the hardships and sufferings of the prolonged campaign, but the men as a body only look for a square deal, and this the Government has promised. The many ways in whicli the disabled men are being assisted must not be'ignored, and the Association justly takes these into account. The Government are merely trustees for the people. They are in possession of the policy of the U.S.A. over this gratuity question, and have thus a reliable lead. When the scheme is brought down will be the time to pass judgment 011 its merits or otherwise.