NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 579, 6 August 1909, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The very useful tables of imports and exports which we reprinted yesterday from the Trade Review are distinctly encouraging. The volume and value of exports are tending upwards, and there is a wholesome shrinkage in the imports. The Review's figures exhibit the operations for the year ended June 30 last as compared with the operations in the preceding year, but the extent of the recovery will be better known when a comparison is made between the years ending rSeptember ; 3o,. or even December 31, because the process of recovery did not really .begin until pretty late in 1908. It did not begin until the facts became too unpleasant to be any longer obscured by the Peime Minister's denials that there was any need for caution or economy. ■For the year_ ended June 30 last the exports (exclusive of specie) increased by £1,663,690, and tho imports fell by £1,729,563. Too milch reliance must not be placed on the declared value of the exports; ikis'much safer tolook.at quantities. And the figures relating to quantities are satisfactory enough. There has been a 20 per cent, increase in the quantity of wool, and notable increases in the amount of grain and dairy produce sent away. The increased volume of meat exported does not, unfortunately, signify a substantial rise in total value. Worth noting, by the way, is the remarkable extent of the North Island's advantage over the South Island from the trade point of view. The following table will show the position:— ' '" ' Exports. Imports. £ £ North Island ... 11,037,435 '9,515,068 .South Island ... 7,231,156 5,951,032 Tho total amount of the North Island's trade is thus 201 millions against 13 millions in the case of the South—an advantage of between 50 and 60 per cent. We are glad to note, however, that the position of the South is improving.

The works established locally for the relief of the unemployed appear to have absorbed the majority of the cases most urgently requiring assistance, but there me still a good many, unprovided for in

the way of employment. The most satisfactory aspect of the position is the Reported fact that a, fair number of the men who-registered their names as out of work are dropping out into private employment. This may be regarded as a vojy good siign. It is far too early yet to expect any appreciable reduction in the number of men for.whom work has, to be found, but no doubt many of those now employed on the relief works will, as soon as they get a , few pounds together, move on elsewhere in search of permanent work, which should grow more plentiful with the approach of spring.

TSfi very improper "Dreadnought" advertisement of New Zealand lamb has not been quite barren of good results. It has led indirectly to a further and very instructive disclosure of the methods of tho Ministerialist press in this country. On July 27 last the Christchurch Press endorsed The Dominion's strictures upon , the people responsible for the advertisement. On the following day the Government organ in Christchurch made the following reply:— ■'■■'■

"The Conservative journals that wore so ready to fasten upon tlio Hon. T. Mackenzie the responsibility for that shocking advertisement in one of the London newspapers urging the British householders to buy their meat from 'the colony which provides the Empire with a Dreadnought,' eeom loss anxious to give publicity to the Minister's indignant disclaimer than they were to hold him up'to eeueure and ridicule."

Here was a direct cha'rgo that the Minister's "indignant , disclaimer" had been dishonestly suppressed. As a matter of fact Me. Mackenzie had not at that time disclaimed, indignantly or otherwise, the responsibility for the advertisement which was claimed for him in the two local Ministerialist dailies. The allegation of the Christchurch paper was quite in keeping with its traditions. Another phase of Ministerialist journalism has since had a most amusing exemplification. The official Government organ in this city said on July 21 that Mr. Mackenzie had been "advertising our lamb in a .most effective manner. For instance," it went on, "in the London Daily Mail there has been appearing on the front page a wo.lltlisplayed advertisement, etc. It then quoted the- dreadful thing, and added:

. "What better method of advertising could we have than this? In making tin's appeal to the British consumer" the Department has certainly done its best in tho interests of the New Zealand producer at a critical stage ill the meat trade."

On Wednesday last it changecf its opinion, and in iia irresponsible way referred to the advertisement as an "atrocious" one—"a bright example of the 'business principles' some individuals rosort to." If it were to turn out that the Government has after all been in some way. responsible for the'thing, we have little doubt that our contemporary will be quite ready to change its mind again. The public must, by now have begun to find instruction as well as amusement in these pleasant little ways of the Government's newspaper supporters. ■