"ALMOST A CRIME."

Press, Issue LXVIII, 31 December 1912, Page 6

"ALMOST A CRIME."

A Coroner at Xhinedin yesterday, enquiring into the death of a sixteen-year-old girl, thus described the wearing of flannelette, which had resulted in her death. Tho girl was Annie Ewart, of Owaka, who was burned as far back as May last, and lingered on until Christmas Day, when she expired, after, it may bo imagined, long-drawn-out torture. On May 16th she was sitting by a wood fire in a flannelette night-gown when a spark fell upon it. Tho Coroner, Mr Graham, in commenting upon tho largo number of fatalities arising from the wearing of flannelette, especially by children, declared that "it should almost be a mado a crime" to wear the matorial "in any circumstances." This is an old story, and an old controversy. Flannelette, which looks like flannel, and is therefore bought for tho purposes for which we should buy garments mado of honest colonial wools, has- not a scrap of wool in it. Wot merely that, hut the process of making tho cotton fabric look as though it wore wool, makes it highly inflammable. Yet it is tho material most commonly used for tho clothing of helpless children at certain stages of their lives. From timo to time recurring fatalities have led to the production of so-called "non-inflammablo" flannelettes, and as every year, the manufacturers increase tho attractive appearance of tho fabric tho vogue still goes on. Experience has shown that in so far as alleged "non-inflammable" flannelettes induce a false security, they are more dangeroua than the frankly "inflammable" fabric. Tho ordinary varieties aro most inflammable when new, but remain inflammable till tho end. Tho non-inflammablo material, however, while not dangerous when new, becomes extremely so with washing, when the preparation used for reducing its fiamroability wears away. This has been shown by tho result of tests held in England, in which only one special variety of "non-inflammable" flannelettes proved to be really so, although many are claimed to be. Tho moral w.mld seem to bo to avoid flannelette altogether. It is after all only a sham, and often a dangerous material, and those who respect tho health aa well as the safety of their childron will find flannel very much better, and in tho long run more economical in wear.

The.anti-militarists, being unable to answer tho arguments of Homer Lea, the author of "Tho Valour of Ignoranco" and "The Day of the Saxon," aro now trying to belittle him.' This is tho way with most extremists. It is not necessary for. a man to have fought on a field of battle in order to be ablo to understand and expound tho great principles underlying tho rise and fall of Empires, and tho science of warfare. The great- Chines© leader, Sun-yat-sen, does not select his advisers without knowing something, about them. Ho chose Dr. Morrison, the world-renowned "Times" correspondent, as his civil adviser, and Homer Lea as his chief military expert. The fact pointed out by a correspondent yesterday, that distinguished military authorities have been profoundly impressed by Homer Lea's books is also a sufficient testimony for their soundness from a military point of view. But their main strength lies in their appeal to common-sense, and the lessons they draw from history. These are irresistible in their force."

It is * equally characteristic that critics who object to Homer Lea because, although ho was admittedly a profound military student, they say ho has not been engaged in actual warfare, aro yet prepared to accept Norman Angell, who writes on warfare from a different point of view, as absolutely infallible, despite the fact that Norman Angell has had no military training at all. Ho was born in England, received most of his education in France, and emigrated to Western America, where he spent some years in ranching, mining, and "cowpunching." He then returned to France, and became connected with tho business direction of a large newspaper enterprise, where, no doubt, he acquired a good deal of financial knowledge, which assisted Kirn in working out his great theory. It is altogether a mistake to suppose that Norman Angell's book, for which we havo more than once expressed our admiration, is destructive of, or even antagonistic to Homer Lea's doctrines. Norman Angell does not say that war is impossible. He simply shows that it is unprofitable, on which wo all agree. A knowledge of this fact has not prevented the Balkans from bursting into flame, nor will it prevent Germany from attacking England when, in Lord Roberts's words, "her hour has struck." Nowhere does Norman Angell lay down

tho doctrine that it ib wrong or foolish for any country to defend itself. No one knows better than he does that tho best way to preserve peace is for a country to make itself so strong that no enemy will dare to attack it.

What is very likely to occur in the future is that strong nations will blackmail weaker nations without tho necessity of going to war. When Germany demanded the dismissal of M. Delcasse, and France yielded because she was unable to resist, France was as much humiliated and beaten as if tho condition had been imposed after a successful campaign. AVhen Germany tried to achieve another "bloodless" victory by sending tho Panther to Morocco, the attempt failed because England ranged herself alongside France, and Germany, realising that at that time tho combination was too strong for her, had to "climb down."

Apropos of tho anti-militarists, we think that a correspondent is rather unjust to "Tho Press" in saving that wo and our contemporaries are largely to blanio for the passive resistance to military training, because we published so much correspondence on the matter. The anti-militarists, on the other hand, aro continually accusing this journal of suppressing their letters. The truth, wo venture to think, lies between the two extremes. While the Defence Act was under discussion, we considered that, as a matter of fair play, those who objected to it were entitled to place their views before the public, so that these might be taken into consideration. We allowed them, then, to ventilate their views to the foil, and perhaps erred a little on the side of leniency. The Defence Act, as our readers are aware, was considerably modified, and, in some respects, made moro favourable to the objectors. "When we found after tlus that, not content with circulating untruthful statements in Great Britain calculated to injure the country and mislead the public, tho socalled "Passive Resisters" tried to make use of our own columns for tho same purpose, we came to tho conclusion that they were abusing tho freedom of the Press, and closed our columns to that sort of correspondence. Some of our contemporaries have not deemed it their duty to adopt the same course, and are quite entitled to their own view of what is right and proper in tho circumstances. We think, however, that our correspondent, who evidently does not approve of their action, should bo a little more discriminating in his cousure.

Another correspondent, referring to some remarks of Mr Allen to tho effect that the moment might come when the Mother Country might ask for armed assistance from New Zealand, expresses some apprehension' of Territorials being ordered over-sea against their will. Ho may make his mind easy on that subject. The Defence Act is emphatic in making it clear that our Territorials cannot bo forced to serve against their will, outside tho Dominion. If the time ever came when the Empire was in grave peril, and the Mother Country called for the services of an expeditionary force from this Dominion, only those who volunteered for the sorvice would bo 6ent. We are quite certain, however, from what w© know of tho patriotic spirit of New Zealanders, that there would, be no lack of volunteers ; that, in fact, the difficulty would make a selection from tho number offering. Another correspondent repeats tho complaint that Mr Allen lias not disclosed th© policy of the Ministry in regard to Defence before leaving New Zealand. It has been explained over and over again that our policy necessarily depends upon what Canada is going to do, and what is to be tho future naval policy of tuo United Kingdom. Until information on that subject has been secured, it is impossible to frame the policy of New Zealand, and to secure that information, is the main object of Mr Allen's visit.

Whatever shapo the Defence proposals may take they will certainly be submitted to Parliament for ratification and the Ministry will stand or fall by them. The country, therefore, will havo full opportunity of giving effect to its wishes in th© matter. When Mr Massey says he knows the country's mind he probably means that ho is sure of its patriotic loyalty to th© King and the Empires—a loyalty that will, not hesitate to make further sacrifices to retain the heritage which has been so hardly won. And wo aro perfectly certain that his confidence in that respect is well-founded. There is only a miserable minority who think that we in New Zealand can leave th© Enipiro to sink or swim without effort on our part to save her from her enemies.

Tho Government has acted wisely in sanctioning the formation of a National Reserve, composed of all men who do not belong to the Territorials, the Territorial reserve, or a rifle club. It will be scon from the conditions that wo publish that the scheme differs from the British model in that in the Old Country membership is confined to those who havo served in the forces of the Crown, but no doubt our organisation will bo such that if war came the men in tho reserve who had been previously trained would be sent where their training would bo of most use. Such a reservo should do much to interest those who do not wear a uniform in the great question of national defence, and members of the reserve, in their turn, can do a great deal towards interesting others, and in many ways facilitating the working of the whole defence system. To be thoroughly effective such a system must be truly national, every patriotic citizen feeling that he has a share in it, and this National Reserve will help towards that end.