NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19550, 1 February 1927, Page 10

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Three sharp divisions in the history of the British Empire are distinguished by Professor Alfred Zimmern in a. series oflectures on the development of the Empire delivered in the United States. For him the first British Empire was the one which was disrupted in 1776. The second was the one which gained naval and commercial supremacy up to 1914. The third is the one that is developing on new lines since its several signatories sealed the Treaty of Versailles. " Naturally the chief interest lies in learning what this historical scholar and clear thinker believes of the present and future of the Empire," says the Spectator review of the series. "He believes that it has a high mission in the world, and that it is capable of performing it, especially in teaching justice between nations and dissociating Government ':rom nationality. We have ' most completely solved the problem of nationality 5 be--cause we have 'most clearly divorced it from politics.' We have allowed cultural: or spiritual self-determination to grow freely. If this were universal, half the eon-' scious or unconscious causes of war would disappear. Professor Zimmern has no fear of danger from the fact now established that the British Government may not commit the Dominions to go to war, because the Mother Country and the Dominions are equally bound to fight, or not to fight, as signatories of the League Covenant. He warns our Dominions that they must not, as they throw off colonial dependence, cling to the privileges of pendence."TRADE UNIONS AND THE LAW. The British Parliament will meet on February 8, and the principal legislation of the session is expected to be a bill dealing with trade unions. Indications are that those who are looking forward to far-reaching amendments of the Acts of 1906 and 1913 may be disappointed, the political correspondent of the Morning Post wrote recently. Ministers, while anxious to protect the individual trade unionist from the tyranny of small majorities and' the wastage of his funds, seem to dread any legislation which is likely to bring apprehension to tho mind of the average member .of thdse unions, and to restore cohesion in the now scattered ranks of the Socialist Opposition. ' This latter result, however, is likely whatever sort of bill may be introduced. The. demand for a secret ballot is easily made; but the more the obstacles have been examined, alike by the Cabinet Committee and the Cabinet itself, the more it is understood, is their strength manifested. To deal with the political levy would be a less difficult task, and it is thought might be done by the compulsory registration of trade unions and a more rigid examination of their accounts by a Government official. That the bill will contain strict provisions against benefit, superannuation and unemployment funds, being used for the general purposes of a trade union is thought to be certain. It is generally assumed, too, that there will be severe restriction on the rights of picketing. A general strike would seem to be illegal already—in the sense that there is no protection cither to a trade union, collectively or to its. members individually such as is afforded in the case of " an industrial dispute. under the present law. The point will, it is expected, be made quite clear in the forthcoming bill; and the disability may be extended to any strike which takes place without due notice. INTERNATIONAL DEBTS. A reopening of the debt settlement problem has been proposed in a manifesto issued by Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler and 40 professors of Columbia University—its authors being described as "no closet philosophers, but men in active touch with every phase of practical life, including finance, industry, commerce and legislation." The keynote is struck in the opening sentences:—"ln our judgment the war debts settlements are unsound "in principle. Certainly they have created and are fostering a deep sense of grievance against us. We do not urge that the debts be completely cancelled. .Whether there should be cancellation in whole or, only in part depends on many complicated factors yet to be studied. What we do urge is a complete reconsideration in the light of present knowledge. To this end we believe that an international conference should be called to review the entire problem of debt payments and make proposals for readjustment." Having thus stated the purpose of their action, the signatories proceed to emphasise the "unprecedented effort" made by the nations of Europe in the last few mouths "to rid themselves of the menace of war„ V .*+■ It is unthinkable that the people of the United States, with their traditions and their historic policies of international friendship and co-operation, will withhold any possible measure of support from this epoch-making movement." THE CAPACITY TO PAY. In its summary of tho manifesto, the Economist remarks that these eminent American critics faithfully reproduce for the benefit of their own countrymen facts and arguments with which Europeans are wearily familiar. It is when they turn from ethics to finance that they really contribute something new to the discussion. They begin with a devastating attack on the formula of "capacity to pay.". Most of the settlements, they point out, are for 62 years. How, they ask, can the capacity of any nation to pay be assessed over 62 years ? Nor can they reconcile with justice, or even with the "capacity to pay" formula, the fact that of their whole debts France is asked to pay 50 per cent., Belgium 54 per cent., ; Great Britain 82 per cent, and Italy only 26 per cent. In ail this the signatories find causes of a dissatisfaction which "may easily wreck the plans for world order and peace, according to which Europe is rebuilding its shattered economic fabric." "Our debt settlements." they continue, "are part and pared of a whole network of settlements l>etween the other Powers. It- is clear that the whole matter should be re-examined on a basis, not of immediate expediency, but of justice and of generous intention that would give no reasonable ground for misunderstanding." They ■point out that for the next few years the debt payment receipts will constitute less than one-third of 1 per cent, of the American national income, or a matter of two dollars annually per head of population. "Payments"that could at best mean a paitrry gain for most American taxpayers Btean to the-, over-taxed debtors a crushi% load."