NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 69, 14 December 1932, Page 8

NOTES OF THE DAY

If New Zealand docs not develop new markets in the East, it will not be for lack of urging. Mr. H. L. Tapley is the latest to return from Australia to tell the Dominion of the trade the Commonwealth is building up with the East Indies, Malaya, China and Japan. He argues that New Zealand can succeed as well as Australia. This outlet has been regarded rather languidly in the past but New Zealand should realise that she may not much longer enjoy the possession of a free and unlimited market in Great Britain. The Home producers have at last made their voice heard. At Ottawa and in the House of Commons Ministers have reiterated that their welfare is to be placed first. Ottawa agreements assure us three to five years of open markets in Britain and that period should be used to ' explore and develop other outlets. An additional spur to effort comes from the existing cut-throat competition in British dairy and meat markets. ,

♦ * * ,■ .♦- j . . Trade returns for November show that Great Britain is continuing to improve her visible trade balance. Compared with November of last year imports are down by £2l million and exports by less than £1 million, so that on balance Britain is £2O million up. For the eleven months the improvement is £llB million. That should go some way to offset the inevitable decline in “invisible exports/’ being receipts from overseas loans, shipping earnings, insurance,-commissions and the rest. More impressive still is the fact that in this year of unexampled depression, British exports declined by only £24 million. Britain s loss of trade has been remarkable in such trying , times and trifling compared with the heavy shrinkage in the exports of the United States, Germany and France. Britain is once again the 1 world’s greatest trader, having recovered the places she lost recently to Germany and earlier to the United States.

According to a Jerusalem newspaper wells of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in Persia have been damaged and an office staff threatened by a hostile mob. Confirmation of this roundabout story should, of course, be awaited but it is notable that both the British Notes to Persia on the latter’s cancellation of the company’s concession envisaged such a happening. The second advised that, “His Majesty’s Government will hold the Persian Government directly responsible for any damage to the company’s interests and interference with their premises or business activities or any failure to afford the company adequate protection.” The British Government also reserved the right, in the event of damage, “to take all such measures as the situation may demand for the company’s protection.” That is a clear statement and a firm one. The dispatch of British cruisers to the Persian Gulf is a reminder of the Government’s determination. There is a strong suspicion, of course, that Soviet mischief-making is responsible for these and previous incidents against British interests' in Persia and that adds seriousness to an embarrassing situation. One redeeming feature in the report from Jerusalem, however, is that troops were called out to protect the company’s offices and staff against the mob at Abadan. There is some 'indication here that the Persian Government is not unmindful of some of its obligations.

„ It would have been unsatisfactory if the decision, of the Rhodes Scholarship Committee rot to select any scholars this year had not been followed by a statement in explanation. To give reasons was necessary and desirable as a guide to the university colleges in making future nominations. The Committee has recognised this fact and its statement is published to-day. Its reasons are clearly stated and sufficiently amplified and are, moreover, supported by a memorandum received this year from the Trustees. “Distinction of intellect and of personality” is stated as the primary qualification and the Committee is reminded that the exceptional opportunity offered by a Rhodes Scholarship is only for the “exceptional man.” These are difficult specifications to fulfil; especially so since their presence or absence has to be determined in what must be for the candidate a difficult interview. A young man of 20 years or so, unless lacking in respect or enjoying exceptional assurance, might easily be over-awed on such an occasion. That would seem to put an obligation on the Committee to place him at his case in order to draw out anything latent that is in him. The responsibility it has already shown should be a guarantee that the Committee would recognise this obligation and, as for the condition of appointment, it seems both wise and appropriate to the Rhodes Trust, •