VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Taranaki Daily News, 3 September 1935, Page 9

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS ITALY AND HER AMBITIONS. ■ . \ SOMETHING IN HER POINT OF VIEW. (To the Editor.) Sir,—ls it really the case, as Rev. J. A. Tempter stated last night at St. Mary’s, New Plymouth, that behind Mussolini stood millions of Italians who wanted something for nothing and were careless of who provided the something? In part, I think it is, but Mr. Tempter’s unqualified statement distorts the real issue. There are millions of Italians hying in abject poverty. That Mussolini has offered them glory instead of bread and that they—like many deluded people before them—have, for the time, chosen the illusion of glory does not alter the fact. . . .. Italy, like Japan—and like Britain after the Industrial Revolution—urgently needs the opportunities for economic expansion that Britain, Germany and France realised last century. That Mus- , solini’s method of securing these opportunities is utterly reprehensible I agree, but I do submit that Italy’s reasonable needs do necessitate access to raw products such as cotton, etc.

“We, ourselves (I quote Professor Jevous) appropriated under mandate almost the whole of the German colonies equalling in area France, Germany, Italy, Poland and all the smaller' countries of Western Europe combined. The Italians received not a single acre of the German colonies” (notwithstanding the Treaty of London 1915!) Italy is prepared, not to get something for nothing, as Mr. Templer suggests, but to spill Italian blood and devastate Abyssinia for the sake of Italy. This Italy must not be allowed to do. The rights of a small, though coloured nation, must be respected. . Perhaps we could save both Abyssinia and Italy by surrendering some of our own surplus wealth in Africa. I seem to remember some such principles laid down by the Prince of Peace Himself.—l am etc., *• •* l ; EDWARD H. DOWSETT. Hawera, September 2. r A FEW QUESTIONS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have read with a good deal of -' } interest the arguments and ideals of the three political parties now announced to come out at the coming election. One is the Reform-Coalition (now the National Party) which has been in office for a number of years, and during that time has passed a number of Acts which the party states has been done to improve the conditions for all in this sadly depressed country. One of these, the Mortgage Corporation Act, twin brother to the Reserve Bank Act, is to take over the huge liabilities of the supposedly non-politicai State Advances, also the assets and liabilities of the Returned Soldiers’ assistance department. Another is the Unemployment Small Farms Act, to enable the State to settle many more on the land, and giving wide powers as to acquiring land by compulsion if necessary to carry but this scheme. Then there is the Labour Party, termed by some the Socialist or Communist Party, which claims that if it is put in power it will devise means that will enable the large majority, workers and others, to earn more, and have a chance of leading a happier life than they are able to do under existing conditions. We also have the Democratic Party which claims to have a policy that will knock the stuffing out of both the other parties, and will make these beautiful Islands just a happy land to live in. To those who will be recording their vote for the first time, these varied political policies must be very confusing. And those who have voted before, and who have watched the trend of politics during the last few years may have some cause to feel amused. I have noticed some correspondents have been asking questions in your correspondence columns, and inviting replies. May I trespass on your valuable space and ask a few questions myself? (1) State Advances, Department. In the Patea electorate, where I lived for some years, a settler whose stock had been sold by a mercantile firm and whojse mbrtgages to State Advances Department were more than the load was worth, was granted a further loan by the Department of over £lOOO. A few years later the Crown Lands Department offered the section at auction, and it reverted back to the Crown. Now was this loan secured through political influence, or was it through the gross inefficiency / of the State Department valuer or board? ' > 'A; (2) Returned Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. A returned soldier who had been to the war, with two sons, but had lost one, applied for assistance under this Act, but was refused any assistance. The reason given was that he had a partner,, who had not enlisted. An ex-Reform M.P.'s son, who was employed in a city, went to the war. On liis return he was granted the full amount under that Act, viz. £3250 at 4$ per cent., purchased land, stock, etc., to that amount from his father, and resumed his former occupation in the city, and never lived, or built on the land he had purchased. Did this transaction comply with either the spirit or the letter of this Act? I (3) Unemployment Small Farm Act. As is well known this Act was said to be passed to enable men to be placed on the land, and so reduce the number of the unemployed. To facilitate the working of it the country was mapped out in districts, and in each district a reliable; and experienced farmer was appointed by the Minister of Lands to work with the'Commissioner of Lands in selecting suitable land for small farms. A case was brought to the notice of the Hon. Minister of Lands of a young man of 23 who applied to be financed to a small farm which had been bequeathed to him, subject to a life interest in favour >2 of a person in England. The trustee under the will had leased the section for a term to the man who had been appointed Government adviser for this district. The Minister of Lands,, while refusing to use the compulsory power given in the Act, did request the Com-, , ■ missioner of Crown Lands and the member of Parliament present to use their best endeavours to get .the man to surrender his lease, even if payment of ’ ■ compensation was necessary. The man refused to surrender the'lease on any conditions. On the Commissioner of Crown Lands reporting this to the Min- q ister, the Minister wrote to the applicant regretting the position, but stating that nothing furher would be done. My question is, what was this Act intended for? The truth of what I have written will be supported by a sworn declaration if required.—l am, etc., • L. E. JACKSON. ’ ' Hawera, September 2.