The Timaru Herald MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1931. THE ACID TEST.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18821, 9 March 1931, Page 6

The Timaru Herald MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1931. THE ACID TEST.

Early in January, Mr Arthur Henderson, the British Foreign Secretary, speaking at Geneva, proclaimed a new alliance of the leading nations of the world, when he called upon the Governments to turn their solemn renunciation of war into a living reality. “The British Government,” said Mr Henderson,

“knows of no alliance and could know of none except that of the Covenant itself, the great world alliance against war,” and he invited all the nations to become allies in the new alliance aimed at the world’s enemy—war. Thus, for the first time at Geneva, were the nations told that their honour, their pledged word and their loyalty to one another are involved, not in declaring war, but in preventing it. Declaring that disarmament by collective agreement is the most important question of the day, Mr Henderson stressed the widely-lield view that the reduction of arms, and not mere limitations was an essential condition of the future welfare of the world. Right down the years since the League of Nations came into being, spokesmen of member nations voicing the aspirations of their peoples, have talked of the menace of war, and the imperativeness of translating their pious professions into actions. But what do we find to-day? The budgets of the seven leading Towers of the world for 1928-1929 show that armaments (and service pensions other than war pensions), cost, in that year:

Total £623,000,000 j From these figures it must be obvious that if world peace is to be made permanent there must j be a much bolder approach to the e problem of disarmaments. Every g member of the League of Rations | is bound by the Covenant, by the j, Treaty of Versailles, and by other t solemn obligations, to the policy j of collective disarmament; in j other words, an international { alliance has been in existence for ( many years which imposes on the ( nations of Europe the plain duty ( of cutting through the technical j jargon of military and naval j staffs, and through lingering ] rivalries and suspicions, to ) make a serious beginning in the attack on armaments of all ( kinds. If the figures quoted i above mean anything, they prove in the most conclusive fashion, ] that the great nations of Europe, ; together with the United States > and Russia have talked dis- | armament and that is about all , that has been done to honour the ] terms of the Covenant that has been accepted by many of them. Moreover, within recent months there has been talk—too much talk—of the danger of war. Such talk, and the apprehension which it implies and creates, is due, more than anything else, to the general disinclination to reduce armaments or to make any real sacrifice of military “safeguards.” ; The international position is still fluid; moreover there are one or two “sore spots” in Europe and Asia which may one day infect the whole body of Europe with the fever of war. Hence the facing of stern realities cannot long be delayed. The only alternative to general drastic limitation of armaments is a return to the old system of military and semi-military alliances, leading ultimately and inevitably to war. Even now, we find members of the League of Nations drifting into groups with their storm centres in Paris, Berlin and Rome; and into confederations under the two flags of revisionists and anti-revisionists, in relation to the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles. It cannot be said that Britain has remained unresponsive to the appeals to the nations to overhaul their expenditure on the various fighting services. Lord Amulree in submitting the air estimates to the House of Commons, referred to “the marked growth in recent years of air expenditure abroad,” and he expressed the earnest hope that the Disarmament Conference will produce a general reduction in air armaments (the rapid development of which throughout the world the Government viewed with profound disquiet), thus removing the serious disparity between the Royal Air Force and Foreign Air Services. In a few months the acid test will be applied to the sincerity of the nations of Europe. At the forthcoming Genei'al Disai'mament Conference every signatory nation to the League of Nations Covenant will be on trial. What they do will determine the policy of the world in relation to armaments and may decide the fate of nations; since in this generation there may never be another such opportunity to end the talk of war and give reality to the talk of peace. VERDICT AT EAST SYDNEY. Wne of the most interesting by- , election contests ever held in

Australia was brought to a close on Saturday by the return of the Labour nominee by a reduced majority. Although East Sydney has been, for many years, regarded as a Labour stronghold, it is important to note that the issue decided at the polls on Saturday was not the Labour or the anti-Labour ideals of a thickly populated suburb of the capital city of the State, but whether the elections endorsed Mr Lang’s policy of repudiation and inflation, or were prepared to return as their member a representative pledged to vote Mr Scullin out of office. Strangely enough, the Prime Minister of Australia had no standardbearer in the fight. With his policy of repudiation of debts, the Premier of New South Wales won the support of the New South Wales executive of the Australian Labour Party. Opposed to him, however, is the Federal executive, the Scullin section of which does not see eye to eye with the Federal executive in all matters of finance, thus it came about that the East Sydney by-election was fought on the State . Labour policy which .has been indignantly repudiated by the Federal Labour Cabinet. During the height of the campaign, it was reported that members of the House of the Representatives of New South Wales, who owe their selection to the State executive of the Australian Labour Party, were called upon by that body to support the candidature of the. selected Labour man, but eleven of them refused to do so. They replied to the commands of the Lang faction by saying that they hold that it is their duty to support the candidature only if it endorses the policy laid down by the Federal executive. They I were summoned to explain their attitude, and were threatened with expulsion from the State Labour Party. But their representatives replied that they would have nothing to do with the Lang plan, and after holding an unofficial caucus, they told the State executive that they would not follow Mr Lang through the East Sydney by-election campaign. As a counter blast to the State executive’s moves, the Federal caucus retaliated by expelling all the members who support Mr Lang. It will, therefore, be seen that the EastSydney by-election was fought on the Labour policy according to Mr Lang and the electors were faced with the amazing dilemna of being asked to elect a Labour candidate who had candidly confessed that he will not support the Labour policy in the Federal Parliament. His vote on the floor of the House will be to turn Mr Scullin out of office, because he does not think his finance policy is radical enough. Opposed to the Labour nominee was the Nationalist candidate, who was pledged to overthrow Mr Scullin because his policy, as enunciated by Mr Theodore, is too radical. Thus, the result offers Mr Scullin no consolation since both candidates had openly denounced his policy.

LOCAL BODY ELECTIONS

Several prominent business men, we are told, have expressed themselves in accord with the suggestion that if practicable, municipal elections in Invercargill should be postponed this year, and the term of office of the present Mayor and Council be extended because of the highly efficient way they have carried out their duties during the past two years. It will not be denied that “several business men” have a right to express their views, but it must be obvious to them that if the people of Invercargill favour extending the term of office of the existing municipal administration, they have merely to discountenance all opposition and give the Mayor and Council a new lease of life by returning them unopposed—a much more satisfactory method of retaining the service of a body of men “who have carried out their duties in a most efficient way,” than by requesting amendments of existing statutory law. It has been urged on the grounds of economy that the local body elections ought to be postponed this year. On the face of it, the suggestion is worthy of consideration, but no general rule could be applied throughout New Zealand; indeed, a moment’s reflection will convince the general body of electors that in some districts the cost of the usual biennial election will be public money well invested if sweeping changes are made in the personnel of some of the present local governing bodies. The latest official returns show that the aggregate debt of the local governing bodies of New Zealand, domiciled in this country, is £35,000,000, involving an annual interest payment of nearly two millions. This is an enormous burden to be borne in addition to the ever-increasing national taxation. For years, there has been a rapid increase in the cost of local body administration, and borrowing has become almost reckless. In a review of the economic situation confronting New Zealand, the Prime Minister made pointed and timely reference to the multiplication of rating and administrative bodies and the increasingly heavy burden of this cost on the ratepayers. The election of local governing bodies this year unquestionably offers the heavily taxed ratepayers an opportunity l to instal in office local authorities

fortified with a definite mandate to carry out exhaustive investigations of the cost of local government. Members of local bodies who have been elected for a specified term of office have no right to expect an extension of their term of office without rendering an account of the stewardship to the constituencies, and we have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there are few local governing bodies in the expansive scheme of local government throughout New Zealand which would not be the better for the infusion of new blood.

Britain 115,000,000 France .. 104,000,000 Germany .. .. , 38,000,000 Italy .. 51,000,000 Russia 91,000,000 United States .. 175,000,000 Japan 49,000,000