OF NEW ZEALAND INTEREST

Otago Witness, Issue 3595, 6 February 1923, Page 61

OF NEW ZEALAND INTEREST

(From Oub Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 14. While producers in New Zealand are grieving over the falling prices of butter, it is perhaps some consolation to know that the British public look forward with pleasure to an ample supply from the dominion at a reasonable price. “The public will be gratified to hear,” says The Staffordshire Sentinel, “that there are prospects of cheaper butter, consequent upon the actual and prospective arrival of large quantities of butter from New Zealand, which is also of beautiful quality. We obtained much interesting information this morning in the course of a chat with Councillor Andrew Lumsdale, the proprietor of Coleman’s Stores (Ltd.), Stafford street, Hanley. . . . The New Zealand butter supplies have long been valued for their high quality, and the winter consignments are now beginning to arrive. . . . Experts and consumers are enthusiastic over the quality of New Zealand butter. The dairy interest in New Zealand has long flourished, and it is in a most prosperous and fertile condition. The cold storage arrangements ensure the butter arriving in England in perfect condition, and the British public will warmly welcome the large and cheap and good quality supplies of New Zealand butter. Much the same may he said of New Zealand cheese, and also of Australian butter; but New Zealand butter will be a favourite commodity with housewives this winter.” PACIFIC MANDATES. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian raises the question of the Nauru mandate, and contends that “the fundamental principle of government in Nauru is absolutely non-British,” and that “the tripartite agreement on the phosphates is a violation in spirit at least of the Covenant.” He further writes a good deal about the Chinese labour and other features of the mandate which have been discussed so often that they become tedious. Sir Joseph Cook has felt compelled to correct the impression that might be made by the letter, and in another letter covering a column and threequarters very patiently sets the matter in order. Yet another correspondent has come into the controversy. He states that the facts are not in dispute. “Nauru is a ‘C mandate. Its administrators are not, therefore, under the Covenant bound to the condition of (ensuring equal opportunities for the trade of all nations. Thus the arrangements entered into for the production and sale of the phosphates do not violate the letter of the Covenant. It does not follow that they do not violate its spirit, and I agree with the writer of your article that in fact they do violate it. . . Sir Joseph says that 17J per cent, of the phosphates were sold during the year ended June 30, 1921, which means that 82J per cent, were reserved for the three British countries. Thus the principle asserted in the administration of the phosphates of Nauru is that of a practical monopoly of the raw material of the territory for the countries having its political ownership. It is precisely the attempt to apply this principle, generally, to colonial territory that makes such territory an object of acquisition to States, and thus provides an important contributory cause of wars. If the British have set this example in one part of the world, and with regard to one material, how can they oppose it in other parts of the world, and with regard to any other material, whether oil, rubber, or whatever it may be? Sir Joseph does not appear to see this point. . . . The mandatory Power, I presume, could perform its duties even if the phosphates were under international business control. I am not suggesting tfiat that would be a good arrangement. But what would be a good arrangement would be that the phosphates should be sold in the open market to the highest bidder, regardless of nationality. And what is there to prevent that being done, so far as the administration is concerned ? RUGBY FOOTBALL. According to the correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, the last Rugby season in New Zealand is admitted to have been the poorest since the game started 40 odd years ago. Among other things, the writer discusses. the effect of the amended “kick into touch” rule. “The claim made for it,” he says, “that the football would be brighter and more spectacular, has not been substantiated. The games worth watching in Wellington this season could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and it has been the same in other centres. The backs have almost all gone in for crosskicks and centre-kicks up field, and as these go into the hands of the opposing side, who return the ball in the same way, the forwards stand idly in midfield watching events. The forwards soon learned the folly of chasing after the ball in the game that has developed under the amended rules. They had no chance. “The game has certainly become faster—too fast, indeed, for the old-time heavy forward—but the greater speed has not made for efficiency in attack. The old method of gaining ground by finding touch until within striking distance of the opponents’ line has been killed. The bounce-out is too uncertain to be trusted as a means of attack, and the line-finding art of W. J. Wallace, greatest of New Zealand footballers, and Gerhard Morkel is rapidly disappearing. The disorganisation of attack and defence has opened a field for the freelance which the ‘gallery’ player has been quick to exploit. There have been more solo tries than ever before, but one shudders to think what would happen if a New Zealand team trained under the amended rule had to meet a team like last year’s Springboks or a good English fifteen under the old rules.” Doubtless this statement will be received by the English Rugby .Union with considerable satisfaction, and we shall hear a good deal more about it. TRADE AND SHIPPING. New Zealand has received considerable publicity during this last week in London and provincial dailies and trade journals owing to the issue of Mr R. W. Dalton’s report on trade conditions in the dominion. Amongst other papers, Fairplay finds some satisfaction in the Trade Commissioner’s statement regarding the difficulties of the shipping companies trading with New Zealand, and the contention that the dominion itself could do a great deal more to better conditioirs as regards cost of transportation of produce. “It is usual nowadays,” says Fairplay, “for writers on .shipping matters connected with Australia and New Zealand to talk of the ‘monopoly’ in the shipping trade, and to infer that the rates of freight are so abnormally high that it is necessary for i a State fleet to be run in order to cut the rates. It will be seen, however, from the report of Mr R. W. Dalton, the British Trade Commissioner in New Zealand, that lie, at all events, recognises the trying time shipowners in the trade have in endeavouring to make ends meet.”