NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 230, 24 June 1932, Page 10

NOTES OF THE DAY

'Since the advent of the Wellington Harbour Board’s floating dock, several large jobs involving cleaning, painting and repairs have been completed here which otherwise would have gone elsewhere. The money thus put into circulation for wages and material has been considerable and there has been an indirect contribution to the relief of local unemployment. It is notable that the board at its meeting on Wednesday evening revised its scale of charges downward. This is a wise decision because it is understood that the original scale was considerably higher than those in force at Auckland and Port Chalmers. The floating dock should not be so loaded with charges that it cannot compete with its near rivals. Considerable resentment would be felt locally if business were diverted to other ports because Wellington dock charges compared unfavourably. The board should watch this aspect carefully and take appropriate action if necessary.

It is satisfactory that the Unemployment Board has been able to provide the extra funds to bring the scale of relief payments in the country into line with that in the cities. To discriminate in favour of the urban unemployed would be indefensible. There is no reason why they should be better treated than men out of work in the country. Apart from equity there are practical reasons why urban relief conditions should not be made more attraAive. A large concentration of unemployed already exists in the cities. In the light of recent events the possible effect on public order cannot be ignored. Moreover city ratepayers cannot indefinitely carry the extra burden. ‘The existing position in Wellington, where the council’s funds for relief works are nearing exhaustion, shows the limits that may shortly be reached. Not only funds but useful works are becoming harder to find. The men may be placed to much better advantage from <i reproductive point of view near their own towns. Therefore it was highly desirable that relief scales in the country should be raised to an equality with those in the cities.

. Objection to the playing of the National Anthem was probablv only an incidental reason behind Mr. de Valera’s failure to invite the Governor-General, Mr. McNeill, to the official Free State reception to the Papal Legate. The Fianna Fail party’s policy was involved. Mr. de Valera proposes as part of his constitutional reforms to abolish the Governor-Generalship altogether. The duties of the office under his policy would be merged with those of the president of the republic he envisages. Moreover he sees himself as the holder of the dual office. Therefore it is his policy to keep the Governor-General in the background as far as possible; even to ignore him as happened this week in Dublin. If the King’s representative can be shown to be a supernumerary, a cipher with no real part in affairs; if, on the other hand, the President of Dail and Executive Council appears as the prime mover and real power, then Mr. de Valera may find it easier to slip into the shoes of Mr. McNeill while keeping a firm hold on his own.

Two months ago the President of the Board of Trade in addressing •the House of Commons spoke of progress through tariff bargains to an era of freer trade all round. The same idea was repeated the next day in a public address by Mr. Stanley Baldwin. “A successful example in our Empire,” he said, “would' blaze the trail for the rest of the world.” The orthodox free traders in England held up to scorn the slogan of “through Ottawa to freer trade.” Yet in the last few days, no doubt prompted bj' the actual fact of a protective tariff across the Channel and the imminence of the Imperial Economic Conference, there have been many signs that European nations are beginning to reconsider their exclusive tariff policies. Some of the smaller nations are reported to have initialled a provisional agreemen' among themselves and some of the larger are known to be makinp overtures to Great Britain. The fact is that most foreign countries are far more dependent on British markets than Britain is on theirs if each case be considered separately. It seems to be. proving, there fore, that those who like Mr. Baldwin saw in tariffs a weapon of persuasion as well as defence are, on present appearances, likely to be justified. Certain it is that Britain was quite unable to make an impression on other., countries while she adhered to free trade,