CURRENT TOPICS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 250, 1 March 1911, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS

UNIOS JACK OR STARS AND STRIPES? A couple of American senators have, by the aid of an absurd jest, which recommended the annexation of Canada to the United States, served a useful purpose. Their request that President Taft should negotiate with Britain for the purpose resulted in the immediate declaration of Canadian loyalty. Canada showed by the flying of' the Union Jack everywhere that she had no intention of taking the advice of American senators, or of "cutting the painter" because trade relations between the Dominion and the Republic are strained. The fact that President Taft refused to obey the behest of ridiculous senators is an assurance that Mr. Taft does not desire to court the' laughter of John Bull. The senators who were guilty of the jest may have I had a deeper purpose than is shown. I Their opposition to the ratification of I the treaty of reciprocity between their | country and Canada was ineffective, but it is likely the suggestion about annexation was specially devised to rouse opposition to the treaty in Canada. We have been told that there is powerful opposition in the Senate to the ratification of the treaty and that the Bill has been reported without recommendation and filed, presumably for consideration at a further unavoidable session. In the meantime Canada does not weep. The United States wants a better market for her manufactures in Canada and better treatment of them. But she also wants many raw products and foodstuffs from the Dominion. At a pinch, Canada, which is extending her manufacturing energies every day, could do without the help of the United States, but it is less probable that America, which is "going the whole hog" on manufacture and neglecting primal production somewhat, could do so well without Canada. With the consent of Canada, not to mention John Bull generally, annexation would effectually remove all barriers to Uncle Sam's commercial enterprises. The fact that Canada has at present the "best end of the stick" is distinctly gratifying. The hanging up of the Reciprocity Bill, or its final slaughter, will result in a tariff war between the two countries, greatly to the disadvantage of the United States, which will quarrel with its neighbor probably by taxing products America badly needs. Prohibitive tariffs by Canada against American goods would persumably be bad for Uncle Sam and good for Canadian manufactures. The hotheads of the United State.. Senate who bar the way towards a ratification of the treaty may probably grow cooler before the session to be called for its consideration comes along, and Uncle Sam nlay decide that if he can't get the earth or even that portion of it called Canada, he can get a reciprocity mutually useful if he quits using bombastic methods.

FASHION'S FOLLIES. There liave been riots in Madrid and in New York because some ladies appeared in public wearing "harem skirts," a tyje of garment infinitely more sensible and becoming than the late unlamented "hobble" vnriety. It is hard to guage the public estimate of what is reasonable wear. Just as the horse "shies" at a traction engine because he hasn't seen one before, and stands calmly in the presence of a belching cannon he knows all about, so does the average human being quarrel with the unconventional. There is no earthly reason why men should not wear pink coats and green trouscrsf-but assuredly such wear would gather a curious, if not interfering, crowd, simply because the people would be unused to them. Why we should get angry about people's clothes—unless they are doing its an injury—is hard to determine. We liave a right, one supposes, to quarrel with the "matinee" hat simply because it blocks out our view of the stage, and we might with some justice become angry at having our eyes poked with twelve-inch hatpins, but there seems to be no reason why, even though we are Spaniards or New Yorkers, we should want to fight because some women, in our opinion, make themselves* appear ridiculous. The man or woman who spurns conventionality is a brave person. The medical man who came to New Zealand and walked about the streets bare-footed was considered to be a fool by everybody who wore boots. The average persons contends that only those things are seemly that he himself does. We object to the person who is not imitative. We who are correctly dressed on Devon-street would be screaming absurdities in Turkey or Persia. A Japanese lady in her native garments in the streets of a New Zealand town inspires the rude interest, if not the derision, of all the people who are not so sensibly dressed, and the man in a pothat, a white waistcoat and a frock coat would consider himself entitled to laugh heartily at a Cingalese man wearing a skirt and with his hair "done on top." British men are quite convinced that nature is best adorned with cylindrical lower garments, angular upper garments, an article like an inverted saucepan on the head, and a length of starched linen round the neck. People don't riot with us for wearing these absurdities, but they would presumably riot with us at once if some of us took the air attired in Roman togas and wearing sandals. A foolish fashion is the fashion the other woman wears, and an absurd costume is the sort of costume we haven't beheld previously. Still, our forefathers didn't riot when hoop skirts were in vogue, and there were no murders done because the dandy of ICOO had his boot toes tied to his knees, and nobody quarrelled with Queen Elizabeth because she wore a collar eighteen inches high. We hope the local police will be able to control the crowds when the first pair of Turkish trousers arrives.

INSURANCE AGAINST SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY. Mr. Lloyd-George's scheme for State insurance of workmen against sickness and invalidity has been given to the British Press. Briefly it is this: Every man whose income falls below £IOO 'a year is to he insured in an amount up to and not less than 5s a week during illness or general incapacity for employment; the premium to be paid half by the workman insuring, one quarter by the employer, and one quarter by the State;, no medical or life policies'; State sick'if*s insurance to cease at the age of seventy, when the old-age pension begins; the scheme to be administered through and in co-operation with the friendly societies and insurance offices. The plan, it.appears, will be laid before Parliament this session, and after being parried through an early stage will then be suspended for consideration by the friendly societies. "On principle," says the Saturday Review, "we are all for the State helping those with small in-

comes to insure themselves against disaster from sickness. The ruin wrought by the sickness of the breadwinner is no mere private loss: it is economically disastrous to the State. It is no mora than national helf-protection to guard against it. No doubt much individualist opposition will be disarmed by the demand on the insuring workman to pay half the cost." The Nation, commenting on the scheme, says: "The broad idea of the social programme of Liberalism is the protection of the mass of the population against the 'risks' of life—the periods or occasions of helplessnesschildhood, sickness, unemployment, invalidity, and old age. The principle underlying this idea is that, under existing ( economic conditions, the individual is not capable of adequately protecting himself and his dependants against these 'risks,' that, nevertheless, it is his duty to do bis part, and that, upon the whole, he will be stimulated to perform his duty by the frank co-operation of the State." The Times calls attention to another aspect of the case: "Laying out money does not of itself make better citizens, and unless we are making them better, ■ the money is a drain upon the industrious and productive part of the community which cannot be indefinitely continued and increased without leading to disaster. It is hardly possible for anyone standing aloof from political wrang-

".' to think that sufficient attention is paid to-day to the only side of the question that is fundamentally important. We hear incessant talk about rights, but very little about duties; incessant appeals to men to consider how much they do not possess, but very few reminders of how much they are not that they ought to be; and constant references to what that great abstraction the State owes to the individual, without much calculation of the discipline and civic virtue which the individual owes to the society in which he lives."