NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 778, 30 March 1910, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

A very curious position appears to have arisen in connection with the Wellington Harbour Board, and one which is of particular interest justnow. It seems that'someone, a little time back, took it on himself,-or it may have been .themselves, to "sound" the money Market, in London as to tho prospects for a Wellington Haj-bour Board loan. "This action was, . perhaps, harmless enough, but it would seem that some sort of prospectus was issued purporting to. state the position of . the Board's finances. Unfortunately, this, document does not appear to have been very carefully compiled, and included-in the statement of rovenue credited to tho Board was certain loan money. No one seems to know who issued this prospectus and certainly the Board did not authorise its issue, It is stated that the name of the late, chairman of tho'Board, Mr. T. M. Wilford, was attached to the document, but that gentleman seems to hjive disclaimed any responsibility for this. Like most of the other members of the Bo'aird ho is understood to have declared that he knew nothing about the matter. The Board has very properly decided' to endeavour to got to the bottom of. the'whole business. ,We would suggost that .the proper course to pursue, if future embarrassment is to be avoided, is to deal with the matter in public. The. whole* of the facts at the dis'-. posal of the Board would probably .make 'it n interesting "story, arid'in any case .the-' action " complained of is far too serious 1 to be 'lightly passed over. ■

A little,notice is due to.the statement, of the' President, of the Board of Education, Mr. Eunciman, upon the moral of tho trouble in the British coal industry. The eight hours •diyr. in;.the coal _trade, Mr. Rij.nciMAN.said, "had dislocated trade and 'rendered thousands idle. Should a .great strike occur, suffering would penetrate to hundreds of thousands .of homcsi Nobody had heeded Mr. Herbert Gladstone's , advice to con■sumorsto bestir themselves to prevent the passage of the. Eight Hours Bill. The consumers were chiefly blameable, hut both political pairties ,were culpably responsible-for allowing themselves to': be bullied and cajoled into / adopting a sinister policy." Coming from a member of the Government that passed the Act, this is a very interesting confession. It was freely predicted , before the ;Act was passed /that bad results would follow such an arbitrary interference with the conditions. of an industry old enough, and largo enough to have found how best to fit into the economic machine. There is no longer any question: that the Act has done more harm than good, and the trouble it has caused may lead British politicians to renew their faith in the unwisdom of attempting to alter the laws of economics by means of legislation, Mii. Rxjnciman's reference to the consumers is very like a good deal of the talk upon the new American tariff. That tariff, as is ■ now well known, has accentuated the, rise in the cost ,of living, which is fast becoming a political issue of overshadowing importance. The low-tariff newspapers have for months been striving to oducate into political' solidarity the body of consumers, and Consumers' Leagues have been established'in many 'of the eastern towns and cities. The consumer is everywhere at the mercy of the classes rich enough, as in America, or noisy enpugh, as in Britain and New Zealand, to buy or bully the Legislature into spoon-feeding them in one way or another. It is almost tho general consumer—the man with a moderato stationary income—who has to pay the pricc.

A pleasant, picture is callcd up by the "travelling libraries" sohemo which Mb.' M. Cohen', of Dunedin, has persuaded the Libraries' Association. to recommend for adoption by the Government. The idea seems to be that the back-blocks dweller, hitherto dull and downhearted in his winter isolation, shall.be enabled :to gpond such happy cvenings_over the . books sent to him by a kindly State that he will wish it were always winter. With his head buried in The Sorrows of Satan, or, in more thoughtful mood, Humbugs and Homilies, ho , is expected, no doubt, to care nothing for the fact that tho rofid that he longs for is still unmade. We sec, however, a few difficulties in the way of Mr. Cohen's scheme, at tho_ same time as wo rocogniso 'its merits. In the first place the public, which is realising pretty clearly nowadays that its purse is not so exhaustlcss as to make care in expenditure unnecessary, will not accept without argument the contention that "if it cost £5000 to establish . travelling libraries, to give settlers in tho back.blocks an early acquaintance with the best of literature, it was the

duty of the Government to spend it." In the second plaoc We' greatly doubt whether even the back-blocker or anyone else will credit the State's officials with a capacity for knowing what really is the best of literature. No doubt, if the Government were so careful and thrifty as to find itself greatly troubled to know what to do with its _ surplus cash, the scheme might with advantage be established, although we should insist that the selection of the books should not bo under the control- of any of the Ministers. Nobody knows the literary tastes of Mil. Buddo, for example, or Sir Joseph Ward, or;, indeed, of any of the Ministers except Dr. Findlay, and he, we are afraid, would direct the fire right over the heads of the "wayback" public. The Government really has no money to spare on such a scheme, but it is possible that, in its ambition to play the part .of a sort of Maecenas, it may incline to follow up its grant to Captain Scott's.expedition and its patronage of Professor Bickerton's theory by taking carc of the literary taste of the people. It is hardly necessary, we suppose, to point out—although one audacious- member of "the : Association seems to have touched upon this aspect of the question—tha;t the Association's resolution is the "record" example of the tendency of the public to expect the State to attend to .the personal wants of everybody.

Armstrong's team of cricketers ■have thoroughly demonstrated their superiority over the best, that New. Zealand can put into the field. The impression prevailed in some quarters that in the Test games our men would compel the visitors to extend -themselves,, but when the pinch came the Dominion's representatives were found wanting. We. have had the usual budget of suggestions as to the reasons for the weakness of New Zealanders in the cricket' field arid the customary list of . remedies—. More coaches, better wickets wanted, and so on. But the fact remains that the best-wickets have not produced the best cricketers in the land, nor, so far as we can see, have the coaches been able 'to ; make any marked improvement in the standard .of play in. the districts in which they have been, engaged.. Auckland certainly has covered itself with distinction this season, but'who-can' say that this was due to the coaching efforts of the .distinguished .professional cricketer whose .service's ' it had the enterprise to secure ? Possibly one of the chief reasons for the failure of New Zealand to show any. marked advance in. the cricket field is the fact that the game is not taken very seriously here. There is not that keenness amongst the general run of players that incites to effort—the public also pay little .attention to the game. Maybe that with better wickets and. good coaches a proper enthusiasm would : develop —but enthusiasm is a necessary preliminary to the good wickets and coaeHcs, which seems to about suni up ; the' position.. Meanwhile ;'we must continue to take our lickings snckini? our consolation m the fact that they are administered by our near neighbours and the' best-of good snortsraen. ■