NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 101, 3 May 1886, Page 1

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Amoxg other sanitary defects which the prevalence of typhoid has brought to the fore, are complaints of the insufficiency of the service for the removal of household refuse. A householder writes to rs:— " Every house in the city should be visited by the dust-cart, and a city officer should see that it is properly taken advantage of, and refuse not allowed to accumulatell in back yards, either above or under ground. This is a sanitary means that is neglected in the city of Auckland When householders have individually to arrange for a carter to take away refuse, they are apt to yield to the dictates of human nature and be dilatory over the matter, probably disposing of the refuse or part of it occasionally in holes and corners about the place. Just now typhoid fever Is crying aloud to the authorities to adopt every available method for promotion of cleanliness and good health. The dust cart, combined with efficient inspection, is one simple and effectual means to this end, and I would strongly recommend its . adoption forthwith."

Reciprocity of the right kind exists be* tween this colony and New South Walesreciprocity based, not upon any formal I treaty, or as the result of keen haggling, ' but arrived at as the voluntary outcome and expression of the friendly relations and the sense of mutual usefulness pievailine between us and the sister colony. The Tariff Bill of the New Zealand Government, which was introduced last session, proposed among other things a duty on imported coal, which would have been a direct blow at New South Wales; but the good Benae of our representatives led them to reject the proposal. In like way the principles of Free Trade and of inf si colonial friendship havp, in the New South Wales Legislature, juet achieved a triumph over the selfish devices of a Treasurer anxious to replenish the public chest. The ether night we announced that the Legislative Assembly of Sydney had, by a majority of 45 to 22, rejected the proposal to impose heavy duties on imported grain, barley, oats, potatoes, hay, &c. The duty on flour and meal waa proposed 'o be ns high as £1 per ton. That these duties, if parsed, would have eericusily affected the commercial interests of New Zealand is evident when we consider the rapid growth of our export trade in farm produce to Sydney of late years, and the act cf the New South Waloe Legislature should be accepted as a distinct token of friendship towards us though, cf course, other considerations operated in bringing about the rejection of the tariff' proposals.

To fchow the value of the }Jew South Wales market to pur producers, we give the following statistics of our exports to> that colony for the year 1885:—Oate, £128,504 ; butter, £88,812; horses, £68,450; potatoes, £33,102; wheat, £30,548 ; bran and sharps, £25,934; potted and preserved meats, £25,168 ; cheese, £14 064 ; butter, £88,812; oatmeal, £11 377; bacon, £8,618; salt beef, £8,359; flour, £8,152; cattle, £6,807; hams, £5.220 ; beans acd peas, £3,1b"6. The miscellaneous items, which include {about £76,000 worth of timber, make, with the above, a total of £722,779, or an increase on the previous year's value of £55,827. The imposition of the heavy duties proposed would practically have killed our trade in oats .for instance, which is very considerable although it would have encouraged New South Wales farmers to engage more extensively in agricultural pursuits. The beauty of Free Trade principles is apparent in this, however—that free intercourse allows uty with & soil and climate better suited for agricultural purposes, to export what we cannot consume;,aud as all tradeis exchange, Iwe will receive from the sister colony certain produ '•3 whiich she can give at » 1 cheaper ra^. ihan we could produce them.