PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 193, Issue 22189, 8 November 1943, Page 4

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS WAR CRIMINALS (To Ihe Editor) Sir, —I think some clarification should be made oi the principles involved in the Moscow agreement in regard to war criminals. There is a tendency in our hearts to regard the handing over of such “criminals” to their enemies as “poetic justice.” Such 'deas are worth analysing. In the first place, if the idea were to deal in this way, in a true sense, judicially, it would be a clear prostitution of justice. The scales of justice should not be weighted by prejudice nr hate. It would appear, then, that the reasons for sending these wrongdoers to the countries of their misdeeds must be sought elsewhere.

Consideration of the judicial problems arising in such case suggest that the tribunal or tribunals must be either (1) an international criminal court or (2) the criminal courts of the countries concerned. An international court would mean delay where public policy demands above all speed and despatch. A criminal comes to New Zealand and commits a crime—therefore he is tried in New Zealand. The principle is sound. All the witnesses are at, or near, the scene of the crime, and the alternative would entail interminable delay. There remains the fear that any judicial process to meet such cases must remain, in the nature of things* unwise. A court must not prejudge. Any proceeding to decide upon the guilt of Hitler, for instance, would be prejudged and would be, therefore. unjudicial. Hitler’s guilt is proclaimed. Jn regard to the more notorious of the ‘‘criminals” it might be wise, as it would be just, to decide upon their punishment beforehand and let them, on identification, be dealt with by immediate courtsmartial. The job of performing unpleasant social tasks should be sudden and should, at any rate, be free from humbug. The courts of all nations should be saved from even the suspicion of acting Nationally and of inflicting penalties based upon -prejudice and not upon evidence.

It will be remembered, too, that a war criminal may be known perfectly well but he may have been able, and will certainly have tried,' to destroy all witnesses who could give direct evidence. The lesser men will present greater difficulty. My own hope is that- in the process of liberation, the necessary tasks will be accomplished without a long-drawn-out series of trials marked less by judicial impartiality than by a desire to satisfy the very natural demand for popular vengeance.—l am. etc.,

F. A. de la MARE.

LAND SETTLEMENT COSTS

(To the Editor)

Sir, —Because of the fact that the Waikato Land Settlement Society’s scheme has been held up as a model to be applied over the Dominion, I think Mr Douglas Seymour is asking for only a fair thing when he wants particulars of costs. Here are some of them, but these do not include valuation after taking over by the State. Formed in 1932 with the object of placing men on the land as a relief measure, the society received £27,000 in public subscriptions. It then purchased ihree blocks: Kairangi, 1953 acres; Karakariki, 2152; Wharepapa, 3671. Total, 7776 acres. Finding the funds inadequate, the society approached the Government and was

given a grant of £43,000 from the unemployment funds. Later, a further appeal was made to the Government, and this time £39,000 was received. Total from all sources, £109,000. But despite all these financial vitamihs, this scheme seemed doomed to suffer infantile mortality, and the distressed mother went once more to. the Government, this time asking that the expensive little brat be made a ward of the State. This was done, under Section 19 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act, and thus the infant was taken into care and custody instead of being left to perish, on the highway. At the time of taking over by the State ihe society had settled 10 men, five on Kairangi and five on Karakanki; none on Wharepapa. Tnis figures out at £10,900 per settler. If I could get a quarter of that free I would have a go at farming myself. Allowance must be made for capital expenditure, but if any comparisons are to be made with settlement by purely private enterprise, then ti>e value of the voluntary supervision must be taken into account. The State has since settled a further 19 men, out I have never seen any statement of the State’s outlay.

The above is unavoidably incomplete, but it seems obvious that if we ar« to settle, not 10 but 10,000 men on such a basis, ws-shall-cer-tainly have to regard money as being merely “scratches in a ledger,” and not as necessarily representing real weath.—l am, etc., T. E. MCMILLAN.