The Week in Review

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLI, Issue 5, 29 July 1908, Page 1

The Week in Review

The Financial Debate has closed, its final incident being, appropriately, a vigorous defence of the general financial policy by the Prime Minister, coupled with a powerful denunciation of the actions of those who persistently seek to discredit the standing of the Dominion in money matters. Sir Joseph, unfortunately, was not in a position to quote from letters in his possession that would have disclosed the identity and the methods of those persons who, for selfish ends, sought to “bear” New Zealand stocks on the London market, especially when fresh loans were being floated. He was, however, able to quote from a letter written by Mr. John Duthie, of Wellington, and published in the London “Finance Journal,” in which an attack was made on the finances of New Zealand. Mr. Duthie is a gentleman who is deservedly respected for his public spirit, and no one doubts the genuineness of his convictions; but his diatribes against the Government’s finance are marked by a bitterness and partisanship that must largely discount their influence. So strong is his partizan feeling that he apparently does not pause to consider what the full effect of his statements may be; therefore it becomes necessary for the Colonial Treasurer to reiterate, what the stock quotations show to be the fact, “that there is no finer security in the world than is offered by New Zealand for the money she oorrows.” Sir Joseph Ward also showed m the course of his Budget reply that private money - lenders had lately made a concerted attempt to increase the rate of interest charged by them on loans. This attempt, it is hoped, will prove unsuccessful. Should there be a danger of the tactics succeeding, the Government mus-, by special effort on the part of - e Advances to Settlers Department, neutralise it and prevent any cheek being given to the development and prosperity of the country. The resignation of the High Commissioner for the Dominion in London comes at an opportune time, and cannot be viewed as altogether a matter for regret. The New Zealand office in London had got out of intimate touch with this country, had not been kept up-to-date, and it was widely recognised that there was need of its being thoroughly reorganised. The recent reappointment of Mr. Reeves for a further term of two years therefore carried with it an element of disappointment, inasmuch as it seemed that the improvement of the London office had been postponed for that period; but now that Mr. Reeves is reliuquishing his duties in about three months’ time, hope is once more revived that New Zealand's representation at the centre of Empire will be immediately placed upon a more satisfactory footing. In all this tliere is not the slightest reflection intended upon the ability, fitness, and devotion to duty of the present L'igh Commissioner. He has filled the position with every credit, and by his high literary attainments has shed lustre Upon the Dominion. For the unsuitable location of the offices, and for the antiquated methods upon which they are conducted, he is in no way responsible. Perhaps, if all were known, he has been the most- strenuous advocate of more progressive methods in the matter of New Zealand's representation in London. Mr. Reeves is to be warmly congratulated upon the honourable and lucrative appointment tliat he has received as Director of the School of Economics and Political Science, in connection with ths London University. His special attainments and bent of mind make him admirably fitted for the post. The fact of a native of New Zealand being selected for such an important position

should be particularly gratifying to all patriotic people in the Dominion. Almost quite as pleasing is the reported statement of the Prime Minister that he hopes to appoint a New Zealander as High Commissioner in succession to Mr. Reeves. Rumour has associated Sir Joseph’s own name with the office. If he does not wish it, the best man upon whom the choice of the Government could fall is Mr. T. E. Donne, general manager of the Tourist Department. Last week we remarked that Aucklanders were an emotional people, and were not always quite rational in their emotialism. Since then, events have provided proof of the truth of the statement. The time-table of the express train over the North Island Main Trunk railway has been announced, and the discovery that the express will leave Auckland late at night has produced a perfect torrent of indignant protest from Mr Massey, from his Auckland newspaper organ, and from a number of residents in the Auckland rural districts traversed by the line. The objections offered to the proposed arrangement are silly and puerile in the.extreme. Tourists will not see the beautiful scenery; country people will get to their homes in the middle of the night; women and children will be incommoded, in order that a post-card may be carried more rapidly to Invercargill, etc., etc. All this is most irrational, because tourists will not use the express if they want to see the scenery, but will go by the day train, that will run on alternate days; the women and children and settlers will do likewise; business people and mails will be carried quickly by the express, and nobody will be Incommoded in the slightest degree. The only way to satisfy the objectors is indicated in the following rhyme: — TRAINS THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT. For many years rose Auckland's wails And pleadings for a road of rails; For years did Auckland block the way, Calling for routes that ne’er would pay; Now, when the boon is well in sight, She weeps—“ The trains will run by night! ” Quick railway travel was the cry Through all these weary years gone by; The Auckland-Wellington express Is timed to stop six times or less, And now the mighty cry is hoard—- “ Not stop at Waybackvillet—absurd!” But. of all blows, the saddest quite Is this —“The trains will pass by night!” Hodge and his brood had hoped to view The passengers who travelled through— To see them “rush,” with thirst-parched tongue, The shanty-pub of Brother Bung. At least they hoped their eyes to cast Upon the swift train rumbling past! Crushed are their dreams of keen delight, The trains won't stop; they pass by night! Can’t Auckland wake up Sammy Vaile, That great reformer of the rail? lie could evolve some plan, I guess, By which a special fust express, Rushing along by night and day, Calls nt each station by the way, And everywhere in broad daylight— We won’t have trains that pass by night! JX JX “We and our children may not live to eee it,” said the Prime Minister the other day, in prophetic mood, “but there will some day be a fight to decide whether the white races shall govern Australia, New Zealand, and other islands in the

Pacific. If at that time we could have as our ally America, with her powerful fleet, we should be very glad to have them fighting shoulder to shoulder with us.” In these words Sir Joseph Ward has crystallised the hopes and fears which animate many thinking people in connection wi.th the approaching visit of the Americas! fleet to this country. It is a wise saying that “one cannot have Loo many friends,” and the “entente" which we hope to establish with our American cousins may stand us in good stead when the naval Armageddon of the South arrives. There is, therefore, every reason why our welcome should be as warm and enthusiastic as we can make it, and why our visitors should receive a pleasant and lasting impression of the friendliness of this country and its people. Anglo-Saxon Federation may be a dream to-day. but dreams have a way of coming true, and no one knows how sooci the great crisis may arise that wili find England and the United States in the same camp, lighting for the supremacy of the white race and the principles of Freedom and Justice. When that day comes, “the crimson thread of kinship” will bind us al! the. more firmly if we in the meaintime weave ties of friendship and common interest. In a recently published novel, ‘The World’s Awakening,” the epoch-marking struggle for the mastery is fixed to lake place in 1920, when Japan and Germany In alliance will fight against the British Empire, the United States and France. The author makes the “casus belli" arise in Sydney over a riot betwen Sydneyites and Japanese men-o’-wars-men. By that time the Anglo-Japanese alliance is assumed to have ben terminated, because of Australia’s objection to the influx of Japanese that has taken place on account of it. Sydney is bombarded by Japanese cruisers; Western Australia is invaded; the Filipinos, backed by Japan, rise in revolt; and the natives of India and Egypt attempt to throw off British rule. Then, when England has declared war against Japan, Germany invades Great Britain. The British China Squadron is annihilated by the Japanese, who afterwards seize and destroy the Panama Canal; whereupon America takes up arms on the side of England; and, of course, the ultimate result is the triumph of the Anglo-American forces. The moral of the story is that Britain should pay timely heed to the representations of Australia and New Zealand in the matter of Asiatic immigration, and thus avert a terrific, sanguinary and prolonged war. The author declares that failure to heed such warnings led to the war. “For many years a few far-seeing English statesmen had continued to point out the dangers arising from the development of Japan as a world power in trade and armaments. But only in Maoriland and the Commonwealth had their views been seriously considered. Britain lay too far from the centre of the impending typhoon, and, moreover, revelling in the height of her present frenzy of magnanimity and abnegation, she was insensible to symptomatic nerves.” These are the thoughts that are passing through men's minds to-day; and as “coming events cast their shadows before,” it would be well for all to guard against the impending cataclysm or be prepared to face it. JX ,5* The questions of immigration and population received some attention from members of Parliament in the course of debate in the House on Friday last. The first speaker was Mr. Wilford, the gonial Wellington gentieman who thinks that a sane and hospitable welcome to the American fleet would be provided if the Prime Minister came along to Auckland to receive the Admiral in command. Mr. Wilford showed that his parochial ideas embraced more important matters than the greeting to be accorded the naval representatives of a great and

friendly Power. J- -> argued that, with regard to Government employment, preference snould be given to persons born in New Zealand. To enable this to ba more easily done, he held that immigration should be restricted, that no more artisans or domestic servants or farm labourers should be granted assisted passages—that, in short, only farmers with small capital should receive Government aid. This is surely ‘lre very acme of narrow selfishness. It is also distinctly uncomplimentary to the young New Zealanders, among whom Mr. Wilford is proud to rank himself, for it carries lire implication that these are unable to hold their own in competition with imported artisans and others. This slur upon the youth of tne Dominion and upon our system of popular instruction is entirely unwarranted, and in Parliamentary phrase, Mr. Wilford “ought to be ashamed of himself” for casting it. Mr. Massey endorsed his remarks to the extent of saying that immigration should be controlled, so as not to swell the ranks of the unemployed in the cities, which is a fairly sensible view to take of the matter. JX Then fr. Baume ana Dr. Chapple had Something to say about the need for increased population in the Dominion. Mr. Baume lamented the declining birth-rate and the'growing scarcity of young people, and uxgad the advisableness of the Government giving encouragement to those who bring up large families. His only practical suggestion was that the State should give free travel on the railways to children, and also to young people going to work; but it is by no moans self-evident that this would confer any benefit upon either the parents or their off-spring. Dr. Chappie, who is a careful and capable student of the population question, held that immigration must bo encouraged. He recalled the fact that ancient Sparta increased her population by enacting laws assisting large families, but he considered that process too slow to meet the requirements of New Zealand. By way of reply to the arguments against encouraging immigration from Great Britain, Mr. Tanner, one of tho ablest Labour members that has ever sat in our Parliament, pointed out that threefourths of the immigrants to tho Dominion came, not from the Old Country, but from Australia “The last, speaker has put his finger on the right spot,” declared tho Hon. Ilall-Jones, who went on to say that many immigrants of tho less desirable sort came here without Government assistance, while others were sent by charitable institutions. The middle line of truth and safety is not difficult to discern between these conflicting views. “Young New Zealand” should be encouraged—not by preference of employment, however, nor by any preferential treatment in the matter of travel. He should simply be encouraged to be born; and the way to do this is to impose a special tax on bachelors and spinsters above a certain age, and to give a bonus to all parents with families exceeding u.rce in number, with a graduated increase for large families. Immigration should also be encouraged, hut assistance should only be given to those classes of people of whom this country st.anas in need; and there should at the same time bo a more rigid test of fitness applied—moral as well laipsayhc suethedswkrvz moral as well as physical—before people are admitted to the Dominion. This tost should be enforced in the case of persons coming from Australia as well as from the older lands, and in every case preference should be given to those of British stock. To carry out these ideas would involve some increase of machinery, but the results would justify the trouble and expense. It is to be hoped that a Population Bill on these lines will be prepared and presented to the House by some thoughtful and patriotic left*La tor.

Employers of labour are alarmed and indignant over the award of the Special Board of Conciliation in the Auckland Tramways dispute, and there certainly appears to be some reason for those feelings on their part. The main effect of the decision is that the Tramways Company is denied the right to discharge employees without “valid reason,” and is ordered to remove from his position a manager whose methods are considered by his subordinates to be objectionable. This looks very like taking the control of their own business out of the hands of the directors of the company and placing it in the hands of those who have no pecuniary interest at stake, and no interest in maintaining efficiency and discipline. If this be the meaning of the award, it must bring disorganisation and disaster. It does not follow, however, that such principles would apply to all kinds of employment. A tramway company is discharging a public service, and to some extent occupies an exceptional position; it must therefore be prepared to work under conditions and restrictions of a special kind. But in such cases duties and obligations should be mutual, otherwise there is a lack of equity. In other words, if tramway employees are to have special privileges, they ought to be under sj>eeial obligations of service. It is difficult to see how such obligations could be enforced. For example, if it were enacted that they should not leave the employ without “valid reason,” how could they be punished for breach of the law? One man might be imprisoned, it is true; but the trouble is that the whole body might strike work without “valid reason,” and it would be impossible to enforce the law. The Auckland tramway men are said to be “jubilant” at the Board’s finding, and well they may be! It is probable, too, that the finding will have an important bearing on the Sydney tramways strike, which is, to a large extent, induced by causes similar to those that led to the Auckland dispute. The industrial problem seems to become more abstruse with each successive development, and the end is still far off. “Trades Unions have now a free hand to be as political as they choose, and to subsidise Socialism if they like.” This remark of the London “Daily Chronicle” has been evoked by a legal decision just given by Air. Justice Neville in England. A test case was brought by the secretary of a British union, and the •Judge held that trade union funds could be employed to influence legislation by securing representation in the House of Commons, and that the union had as much right to support socialists as Unionists or Liberals. This is a most momentous ruling, and will probably lead to the wholesale adoption of Socialistic views by the Labour unions. In New Zealand, before the news of the English decision was received, this result was practically achieved, for the Trades and Labour Councils all over the country had embodied in their legislative programmes demands based upon purely Socialistic ideas. The Wellington Socialists have just been holding a “monster demonstration,” in the course of which the workers were urged “to adopt straightout Socialism, capture the political machine, and use it for their own purposes.” The trade-unionists of the Dominion have hitherto been Socialists of the Fabian order, declining to call themselves by their proper name or to ally themselves with the “straight-out” band, which is small in number. Now, encouraged by the English decision, they may come out into the open and show themselves in their true colours. Even should they fail to do so, their votes and influence will be on the side of ultraSocialistic legislation, which the Government is pledged to resist. A coalition of the stable elements in our political life, with a view to resisting the extravagant, claims of the Socialists and tradeunionists, may uot be so remote a eonhingency after all. Those enthusiastic Welshmen of the Dominion who are moving the Government to have St. David’s Day declared a public holiday will deserve the thanks of the community if their action should havo the result of abolishing “saints’ days” altogether. The Minister for Labour, to whom they preferred their request, said there was no reason why St. David’s Day should not be added to the list of public holidays, if the “days” of Sts. George. Patrick, and Andrew were to be •till observed; but, he added, the probability was that all three would be "swept •ff the list of public There

never was any reason behind the observXue ro siqi ui sXsp ,s)uies sssqq jo aaus other country, because there was no Bound reason for making these personages “patron saints,” except perhaps in the case of St. Patrick, who really did good service for Ireland, apart from the mythical tale about his expulsion of the snakes. As regards St. George, the authorities are not quite clear whether he was St. George of Cappadocia, who was torn to pieces in the year 360, St. George of America, who was beheaded in 303, or a fraudulent army contractor of the same name who lived at a much later date. It is certain, however, that he neither killed a dragon, nor shielded distressed damsels, nor swam across St. George’s Channel, carrying his head between his teeth; and why Edward 111. made him England’s patron saint and fixed his “day” for the 23rd of April are mysteries as dark as that of his identity. St. Andrew seems to have been a decent sort of individual who was martyred at Patrae A.D. 70, and he was adopted by the Scots and Picts as their patron saint, because they saw a miraculous vision of his cross in the heavens the night before they gained a victory over the bloated Saxons. St. Patrick, as everybody knows, was a Scot by birth, but it is not so generally known that he had a strange “penchant” for changing his name. His surname when he was born was Sueeat, which he changed later to Corthraige, end finally took the name of Patricios at his ordination as a priest. The Welsh patron saint was a priest of Cardiganshire, who died in 544. It may be as well to explain that he was not the gentleman who had a drunken sow. An innkeeper named David Lloyd was fond of exhibiting a six-legged sow that he owned; but one day some visitors, on going to the aty, found Mre Lloyd lying in it in a state of intoxication, whence came the saying “As drunk as Davy’s sow.” JX •£ Now, these historical statements may or may not be accurate; but, it may be asked, What have they got to do with New Zealand, and why should the business of this country be brought to a standstill for several days every year in their honour? If report speaks truly, the Government has been brought to see the folly of observing these saints’ days, and intends to legislate for their abolition and for the introduction of the more common sense practice of honouring “St. Monday,” by ordaining that a number of holidays be observed always on the Monday nearest to the date upan which they fall. In the Old Country, St. Monday used to be observed by merchants, shoemakers, and other artizans, but it has fallen into disuse. Its origin is traced to Oliver Cromwell. When the Protector’s army was encamped at Perth, one of his zealous partisans named Monday died, and Cromwell offered a prize for the best lines on his death. A Perth shoemaker was the winner with the following verses:— “Blessed be the Sabbath Day, And curs’d be worldly pelf; Tuesday will begin the week, Since Monday’s hanged himself!” The grim old Protector, with an appreciation of humour not usual to him, was so well pleased with this that he decreed that Monday should thenceforth be a standing holiday for all shoemakers. There is just as good reason, and perhaps better, for honouring “St. Monday,” as there is for observing any other saint’s day. The chief qualification about St. George and the rest of them seems to be t'heir antiquity. Perhaps in another thousand years or so the Dominion may have its “St. Tasman’s Day,” “St. Cook’s Day,” perhaps, even, “St. Richard Seddon’s Day.” In the meantime, we shall all be content to accept “St. Monday” as our patron saint. There must be holidays, and there must be some pretext for them; and the hanging of Mr. Monday is as good a ground for rejoicing as the martyrdom of George and Andrew, or the pious labours of Patrick and David.