NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 99, 20 January 1933, Page 8

NOTES OF THE DAY

With to-day’s issue of The Dominion there is published a special supplement descriptive of the remarkable recovery of iXapiei from the disastrous earthquake of two years ago. Phcenix-like a new city is rising steadily from the ruins of that tragic upheaval. Through their misfortune, calamitous and shattering though it was, the people of Napier were given an opportunity oi replanning and rebuildinp, their citv in accordance with modern ideas. Its unique situation lent itself admirably to the laying out of plans for a city beautiful, and now, after two years, the results of this prevision are beginning to stand out. Much remains to be done, but it is already evident that the completed picture will place Napier in a unique position among New Zealand cities. On this, the occasion of the carnival which is being opened to-morrow to celebrate the progress already made, 1 lie Dominion extends its congratulations to the Napier people, and its best wishes for the future progress of their new city.

Mr. A. E. Ansell’s comments on the work that is being .done and the results that have been achieved at Penrose barm Training Camp for boys merit attention. Experience of the previous camp shower, that there were valuable possibilities in farni training for.city boys. The present camp promises to confirm that impression. Mr. Ansel notes several points of interest. Some boys who were not at al sure whether they cared about farm work have developed a real liking for it. Again, as the 'training gives the boy a higher value as an industrial asset, no difficulty has been experienced in placing him. Tn fact, he finds himself in demand, which is a far better thing for h.s morale’ than idling about the town with no definite object in life. Further, it is a test, on a small scale, of the value of vocational training for rural occupations in getting the boys away from the blind alleyof the cities. These are all sound reasons for extending the scheme. Even if considerable expenditure were involved the results, judged bv Penrose, would be well worth while. In its way, Penrose has supplieo a contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem.

Almost every day there is news of the difficnltv whir 1, or another is experiencing in balancing its Budget. At present the French Ministry is in the throes, faced by an usicn £B4 million. By reducing expenditure and increasing taxation In equal amounts of £42 million, it is proposed to biidge the g.in. J>tn the Chamber of Deputies is just as likely to throw out the Ministry as to accept the financial medicine proffered. It is notable that somereductions are proposed in military expenditure and. were it not fot France’s obsession of ‘‘security,” heavy economies might be made in this department. In 1927 the expenditure on national defence was 8000 million francs; last year it was 14,000 million francs. If France would be content with the defence standards of 1927. she could wipe out five-sixths of her deficit at one stroke. Unfortunately financial arguments count little against the psychology of fear which is the ruling motive of French policy, whatever the politics of its Government.

Mr. Roosevelt’s statement of views concerning United States policy in the Far East is interesting from two points of view. In the first place he endorses the principle of continuity in foreign policy. I herein he aligns himself with international tradition, which takes the stand that treaties are inviolate. Secondly, he makes it perfectly clear that as far as President Hoover and he himself as President-elect are concerned, the policy of non-recognition, defined by Dlr. 11. L. Stimson as Secretary of State in the Hoover Administration, is to stand. In January of last year events in the Far East moved Mr. Stimson to address a Note to the Powers intimating for the information of both China and Japan that the United States would not recognise “any situation, treaty, or agreement,” entered into by the Governments of those two countries in violation of existing treaties. Elaborating the point in a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Senator Borah), he declared that “if a similar decision should be reached and a similar position taken by the other Governments of the world, a caveat will be placed upon such action which, we believe, will effectively bar the legality hereafter of any title or riglv sought to be obtained by pressure or treaty violation.” That is con structive diplomacy but, thus far, no general caveat has been lodged. The reminder is timely and may be useful.