Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE THURSDAY, APRIL 1st, 1920. THE JAPANESE ALLIANCE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 April 1920, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE THURSDAY, APRIL Ist, 1920. THE JAPANESE ALLIANCE.

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance will expire in Jiily next, and the question of its renewal is now engaging' the attention of British statesmen. In the event of its being decided not to renew the treaty, twelve months' notice will be necessary. All must admit that in the past the alliance between Great Britain and Japan was a powerful factor in retaining the status quo in the Far East against German aggression. There is no doubt that if it had not been for the alliance, China would have been dismembered long ago. The agreement with Japan was of great service to Great Britain,-as it enabled her to remove the majority of her warships from the Pacific and concentrate them in the North Sea, where the German Fleet had become very formidable. In the period just preceding' the war, the White Ensign had almost ceased to be seen in the Pacific, and the work of guarding British interests was entrusted to our Japanese ally. When the war broke out, the Anglo-Japanese naval and mill-,

tary forces combined'to crusli tlie Central Bowers' forces in China. This work accomplished, British warships departed for the North Sea and the Mediterranean, and the work of keeping- watch and ward in the- Pacific was handed over to the Japanese Fleet. How faithfully and well the Mikado's ships did their work is now a matter of history. It must be borne in mind, however, that Japan did not do this work for mere sentiment. The Japanese are a businesslike people, and they believe that what they did during the war entitles them to some reward. They understand perfectly that the White Australia policy of the Commonwealth precludes them from settling in the north of Australia, aiul"they therefore look to China as the most suitable place for their surplus population finding' a new home under the Japanese Flag. The renewal of the alliance with Britain will therefore be regarded by the Government at Tokio as an endorsement by Britain of Japan's policy of expansion in China. The position, however, has Greatly changed since 1914. The Tjeague of Nations has now eo'me into existence, and as Britain is one of the members she must seek the approval of the other members before renewing the alliance with Japan. The wishes of Australia, and the other overseas dominions must also be considered. The strenuous endeavours made hy Japan to induce .the Allies to include the principle of racial equality in the constitution of the League has aroused suspicion in Australia. It is believed that Japan has sinister designs against the policy of a White Australia. The Australians also resent the fact that the British naval authorities removed from the Pacific all British warships and compelled Australia to depend for her safety on Japanese protection. This has hurt the pride of the Australians, and has caused considerable irritation. The Australians are anxious that the scheme of naval defence should make Great Britain and her overseas dominions entirely independent of the assistance of any outside Power. Australia aims at building up a strong* defence, system in which aircraft and submarines will play a big part. The White Australia policy will be maintained at all hazards, and any weakening of the Imperial Government on this matter will only lead to-trouble. Those who take a broad view of the situation will welcome the renewal of the alliance with Japan, the people of which have always proved loyal to their treaty obligations. We do not think that the Japanese really wish to force an entry into Australia. Pride of race, however, makes them object to the Federal laws which place Japanese on the same footing as men of inferior race. We are quite, confident that if a conference was arranged between representatives of Japan and those of the British overseas dominions much of the present misunderstanding would be removed. Under existing circumstances, racial pride on the pari of Japan and the desire for race purity on the part of Australia have led_ to grave misunderstanding, which may be intensified if measures are not sought to clear it away:

PROFITEERING. Everyone knows that profiteering' is going- on, but, judging by the very few prosecutions that have been authorised by the'tribunals appointed to investigate charges of excessive prices, one would almost! be driven-to the conclusion that profiteering is practically non-existent. The very method by which the tribunals endeavour to secure evidence is such as to suggest that the authorities do not want to probe into the matter. The onus of bringing evidence is placed entirely on individual members of the public. It,is difficult to understand why this should be so; why the tribunals should not investigate the position for themselves. It was understood, when the boards were appointed with a blare of political trumpets that they were to enquire "into charges of profiteering and prosecute in all cases where excessive prices were asked. Factory inspectors were instructed to co-operate with the boards. The important point which the longsuffering public has had forced upon it is that individual members have first of all to submit the.,, price charged for any one article to the Board before anything is done in regard.to the matter. Why the public be compelled'to do the work which it was thought the Boards would cany out ? The ordinary man in the .street, .though lie knows he is being oveixdiarged, cannot say that any particular article is priced at an unreasonable figure and would not, in many cases care to go so far as to place himself in an awkward position and in the limelight if his opinion was not borne out bv the tribunal to whom he re-

ported the matter. The remedy lies in the onus of finding out whether goods are charged for at excessive rates being placed on the inspectors appointed to assist the tribunals and on the members of the boards- themselves. For instance, the responsibility fov ascertaining whether adulterated milk is being sold is not placed on the shoulders of the householder. An inspector purchases some of the milk, has it analysed, and if it does not come up to the standard laid down by the law r he prosecutes. ' Again, if an inspector sees rmtrid food exposed for sale he does not wait for some member of the public to do all the preliminary work before a prosecution can be authorised. The snme principle applies to other sections, of the criminal law. If the police think that a crime is beiug committed tliey do n6t wait for some civilian to "report the matter and make the. investigation—they do it themselves. Why should not

the same principle be extended to securing evidence of profiteering?Many housewives, though they may be convinced that they are being overcharged, would rather, pay the amount than secure a reduction by acting as informer. Is it not obviously the duty of the Government, it it really wants to stop profiteering, to instruct its own officers -to get evidence by purchasing goods and not impose a disagreeable and objectionable duty on individual members of the public.