The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1926.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3757, 16 March 1926, Page 51

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1926.) THE WEEK.

"Nunqnam allml natcra, allud eaplentia dixit" —JCVXNAL. "Good uature and good sense must ever Join.”-* Fora.

The number of fatal accidents at level crossings has directed Railway pointed attention to the Crossings. necessity for increasing care. Attempts have been made to fasten all responsibility for such accidents on the Railways Department, but the responsibility is not so easily apportioned. The level crossings exist, they are known hv the users of the roads to exist, and, while it is the duty of the department to do all that it can to curtail the risk of accident at these places, there remains, when all is said and done, a substantial onus on the users of the roads to exercise care and vigilance in keeping out of the way of passing trains, it is probably safe to conclude that the great majority, perhaps an overwhelming majority, of accidents at level crossings are due to a failure on the part of drivers of vehicles to exercise the care that should be reasonably expected of them. Manifestly, the steps that have been taken by the Railways Department to reduce the danger at level crossings cannot be materially conducive to the protection of the public unless the public recognices the necessity of doing everything possible to protect itself. It has been laid down in the Supreme Court that to look and listen is in all ordinary cases an effective precaution against an accident at a level crossing, and “it is the duty of all persons, before entering on a railway crossing, to look and listen accordingly, and, by reducing speed or otherwise, to place themselves in such a situation that they can look and listen That commends itself as a reasonable pronouncement of what should be required from the public. No doubt the abolition of the level crossing would constitute the ideal solution of which has been created by its dangers. But, in the light of the enormous cost that would be entailed in the construction of subways or elevated tracks necessary for the elimination of all the level crossings in the country, a solution on those lines has to be regarded as impracticable. The level crossings must continue, therefore, to exist, and the public and the Railways Department must each contribute, according to the extent of its opportunity, towards reducing as much as possible the element of danger that is presented by them. The public can do most in that direction. The statement of the Minister of Railways throws instructive light on some aspects of the question. It cannot be fairly alleged that the Railways Department has been apathetic in the discharge of its obligations or entirely negligent in the adoption of devices such as give warning of the approach of trains to crossings. What the department can do further through a “careful crossing” campaign, which implies the adoption of moans to impress the. danger of the level crossing more vividly on the public mind, is to be welcomed. It is satisfactory, also, to have the Minister’s assurance that the department will adhere to, and pursue, the policy, of bringing about the elimination each year of some of the worst level crossings. Signalling devices cannot be installed at all crossings, and it has been pertinently pointed out that there is a drawback connected with

the installation of a warning bell, in that the motorist may be tempted to place such implicit reliance upon it that there is grave risk of accident should the bell for any reason fail to operate. A constructive suggestion is one which urges a concentration of effort on securing the removal, where possible, of all obstructions, s.icli as mounds, trees, hedges, fences, and even buildings which prevent a clear view of the railway line near a crossing. The North Island Motor Union has adopted a resolution expressing the opinion that in future railway construction the level crossing should be entirely done away with. Tlu *: is a view to which the Government may well give serious consideration. The cost of the adoption of such a plan in the case of new railway construction would be a very different matter from the cost of introducing an alternative to level crossings once these have been instituted. For a considerable time China has been disturbed by civil war, China and but the chief interest for the Powers. the rest of the world lie; in her new yearning for freedom. The situation is, according to the Shanghai Weekly Review, complicated by many treaties. Hie pape: views the matter in this light: Therefore the Treaty Powers, or, in other words, the Powers such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Holland, and others now find themselves faced with a practical situation. Four years ago at Washing!o.i they met China’s demands for equal treatment and made certain promises, which, in simple. language, meant that they agreed on paper, at least, to forego the old methods of imperialism at the expense of China. Therefore, with military imperialism thrown on the scrap-heap, what is there left in China to-day of interest to outside nations, except trade? Four years the Pc v.s flirted with China and made certain commitments. To-day China is tin itening a breach of promise suit, and she has powerful suitors on her side! So to-day, with a strange admixture of altruism and impotency, the Powers are facing a virulent Chinese nationalistic sentiment —and as Justice Johnson, of the Philippine Supreme Court, who participated in the judicial inquiry into the Shanghai riots of last summer, said, “You can’t shoot it down and you can’t lock it up in gaol.” In view of the obvious inability of the Powers to take strong action—that is, action which would lie backed up by gunboats anu armies, tins Americanowned Shanghai weekly observes: Our people at home are fed up on war and are restive under the burden some taxes which are hanging over from the last war. There is not a legislature in the world which would vote a war appropriation to send troops and navies to China for the purpose of upholding treaties negotiated a half-century ago which every one feels are out of date and not in accord with modern sentiment either in China or elsewhere. The answer to this problem is that the Powers are going to make the best of the situation and accede to China’s desires, saving as much as they can of the material interests which were built np under the old system. In other words, instead of force, they are going to use conciliation, for since their principal interest now is trade, they know that trade cannot flourish in an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. In consequence of this situation, it is accurate to say that China is bound ultimately to obtain about everythin" she wants from the standpoint of equal treaty tr 'atment, on 4 iper »ast. We use the statement, “on paper,” because as long as China is dis-

organised politically and undeveloped, she cannot expect to becon.e the “equal” of nations which are organised and have stable governments.

After an investigation lasting several

months the report of the The British British Coal Commission Coal Crisis. has been published. While it lias presented many striking facts, some in a new setting, it leaves the situation as delicate as when the Government, in July last, secured temporary peace by paving a subsidy, which will absorb something over twenty millions sterling. The Commission is very definite in stating what should not lie done. It is against the subsidy on grounds which re at least economically sor.id, and rejects also the Miners’ Federation’s panacea of nationalisation of the coal-mining industry. A solution of the problems of the industry that would he found along the lines of nationalisation would be as mischievous as the subsidy method which cannot pay the 1924 scale of the subsidy the Government makes good the losses suffered in those districts which cair ot pay the 24 scale of wages without encroaching on the owners’ percentage of profits. It is a plan which discourages the efficient operation of the industry, since the taxpayers have to meet any losses that aro incurred. n argumei.t by winch the scheme of nationalisation is supported is that the miners mu:' have u certain minimum wage, liether it is .conomic or uneconomic, and that if the industry cannot pay it the com .-unity must make up the difference. Under cither plan, the

long-suffering taxpayers are severely scourged. The Commission, K is not surprising to find, is unable to discern any advantages which would accrue from nationalisation as a set-off against the ginve economic dangers that would have to be faced. Yet the Commission does favour a form of nationalisation, though the extent of it is not quite clear. It speaks of “the past error in allowing tlie ownership of coal to fall into private hands,” and this suggests that the principle of the State-ownership of natural resour - is regarded by it approval. But how far its recommendations that the State shou.d acquire and administer mineral property have any bea lg on the present condition of the coal-mining industry is not apparent. There seems, indeed, to be a certain inconsistency between them, and the fact that the Commission contemplate? the continuance of the industry under private enterprise subject to reorganisation in a number of particulars. The crux, however, of the whole report, so far as the miners are concerned, consists in the statement that “a revision of the minimum percentage addition to the standard rates of wages fixed in 1924 during a time of temporary prosperity is indispensable to save the industry from impending disaster.” That is the feature of the report upon which, more than upon any other, the criticism of the miners’ organisations will be fastened, liie Miners’ Federation is not prepared —it was said in evidence before the Commission—to discuss lower wages or any extension of the working day. It ij, however, because of the high” costs of production brings the whole question rest on an economic basis. And any refusal to discuss the question of costs of production brings the whole question back to the point it occupied when the subsidy plan was evolved last year.