TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 123, 20 November 1929, Page 10

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Mr. Henderson's reply to questions concerning Russian propaganda gives point to the "Punch" cartoon which appeared when the Protocol was signed. The cartoon shows Mr. Henderson playfully bargaining with the Russian bear: "If I'm to let you hu°me, you must promise not to squeeze." To which the Soviet Bear replies: "Let me hug you first and we'll discuss the other matter afterwards." This question of propaganda was covered by the Protocol, by reaffirmation (to be made when the Soviet Ambassador presents his credentials) of Article 16 of the 1924 agreement. But in view of past experience something more than reaffirmation was required. Mr. Henderson now states that he will insist on the pledge; but there are no guarantees with that pledge, and his position, having once submitted to the Soviet hug, is weak. He attempted a few days ago to belittle the importance of assertions in the Soviet Press that the Comintern was not covered by the pledge; but he cannot escape the fact that the "Isvestia" is, as Sir Austen Chamberlain pointed out, the official organ of-the Soviet Government. In 1927 Sir Austen Chamberlain had occasion to complain, in his Note to the Soviet, of the Press propaganda, . and he' charged the Soviet with direct responsibility. The "Isvestia" (he wrote) is stated m a decree of the Praesidium of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union to.be the official organ of the Central Executive Committee'; its publishing office is described as a fatate organ not pursuing objects of commercial profit, and it is exempted trom all State taxes. The Soviet Government are, therefore, directly responsible for what appears in it

It would be futile, therefore, for Mr. Henderson to complain that he had no warning of the squeeze that •was likely to follow the hug.

In his dealings with the Soviet, Mr. Henderson made the mistake of being generous instead of firm. If he expected a generous response he was disappointed. He began by being firm, and the first conversations ended abruptly. The second meeting ended in the Protocol which conceded what the Soviet representative had demanded at the first meeting—that full diplomatic recognition and the exchange of Ambassadors should precede the discussion of outstanding questions. The "Isvestia" hailed this as a. victory for Soviet firmness and determination. Orators from the headquarters of the Communist Party proclaimed it "the rout of the pseudo-Labour Government, by Soviet diplomatists, backed by Great Britain's masses." The "Trud," organ of the All-Russia Committee of Trade Unions, said it was a victory for Soviet diplomacy "fraught with colossal revolutionary importance, the mere fact of the re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations will facilitate the strengthening of our international proletarian connections." Mr. Henderson's generosity was attributed to weakness. Having now planted his feet in slippery places, he will find it difficult to be firm.

Motorists discussed traffic control at the Wellington Automobile Club's meeting,, but failed to make definite proposals for improvement. The speakers must be given credit, however, for a sincere desire to seek a solution in an unselfish spirit, and an attempt to place themselves in the position of pedestrians. It is undeniable that pedestrians are slow in adapting themselves to new traffic conditions. They still cross streets at dangerous points, and without that degree of care which the growth of traffic demands. But the fault is not theirs alone. Crossing-places have been marked, but pedestrians disregard them. They do not watch the traffic officer's signals. This cannot be explained wholly by charging the pedestrian with perversity and stubbornness. In part it is attributable to the fact that no proof has been given that the marked crossings are really safer than the unmarked street. Motorists have not been called upon to respect the white lines. If they were required to do so the walkers would be encouraged to use the crdssm °3-, Until there is some assurance oi additional safety and convenience, and until traffic control at street intersections is extended to include pedestrians, the process of education is sure to be slow and difficult. At present the pedestrian has not Christopher Robin's reason to shout: Just watch me walking in all the squares." He knows the bears are likely to catch him off the lines as well as on.

Social service in Great Britain last year cost £376,000,000—a tremendous sum, which is likely to be increased. The Government is committed to raising the school age to fifteen, with maintenance grants so that parents may not suffer as the result of the extension. This is partly an educational reform and partly economic, as the Labour policy makes provision for lessening the pressure on the labour market at both ends—delayed recruiting by raising the school age,, and earlier discharge by extension'of the old a^e pension system. As it is, education costs £81,000,000, and old age pensions account for £30,000,000. To lessen congestion on the labour

market expenditure under both heads must be greatly increased, and even so the effect will not be wholly permanent. The year after the school age is raised to fifteen there will be as many youths seeking employment as there are now. Moreover, neither reform will assist industry to helj> itself. The State will have heavier burdens, necessitating increased taxation, but industry will not be better able to meet the demand. The humanitarian resuit will be admirable, but the economic effect will, to say the least, be doubtful.