Thames Star. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1931. THRIFT NOT PENALISED.

Thames Star, Volume LXV, Issue 18239, 13 July 1931, Page 2

Thames Star.

MONDAY, JULY 13, 1931. THRIFT NOT PENALISED.

“With malice towards none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right."—Lincoln.

A superficial consideration of the Unemployment Board’s policy of excluding from the benefits of relief work men who have money in banks or substantial interests in revenueproducing property prompts the comment that this is a “very dangerous attitude,” “an unfair • discrimination against those who have been thrifty,” “there is no encouragement for thrift, no place for the thrifty,” and other criticism'equally The critics appear to have gone "for their inspiration to the greatest of all authorities: “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he sha'll have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” But that is to assume that all those who “hath not” abused their talents, an assumption by no means, warranted, because many thousands of the unemployed owe their present condition solely to sheer misfortune or ill-health, and not in any degree to wastefulness or extravagance. The Unemployment Board’s viewpoint is exactly that of the party who discovered in the desert two men dying of thirst. One of the men had money to buy water from the party whose supply was almost exhausted, "but the other was penniless. It was known that he had never been thrifty, but would that justify his being left to die? The Unemployment Board realised as keenly as do the .critics that it is the State’s duty to encourage thrift, for the more thrifty the population the easier the burden on the State. But this was no time for meditation upon the various phases of political or . domestic economy, or the possible menace to the fabric of the State. The Board’s duty was to offer succour to those in need, and if in doing that it fractured some intangible social or economic law, the Board has the satisfaction of knowing that hundreds of men, women, and children benefited by its transgression. The fact is overlooked'that the decision that relief cannot be given to people with savings is only of recent origin; the policy was forced upon the Unemployment Board by the tremendous increase in the number of unemployed and the total inadequacy of the funds to give relief to them all. In all seriousness it is asked: What would the critics have done? Give more to those who already had sufficient, and allow the needy to starve, so that a sacrosanct economic law should not be imperilled? Or would they be just human beings, as were the members of the Unemployment Board, and distribute the funds where they were most urgently required? The charge of penalising the thrifty is as unfair as it is incorrect. To argue that the principle of no discrimination should be maintained in face of overwhelming demands of the unemployed is evidence of complete lack of knowledge of the Unemployment Board’s and the Government’s problems in connection with this crisis, though why there should be that lack, with all the facts and figures laid on the table, is more than a little disconcerting.