NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 830, 31 May 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Some interesting light is thrown upon the spirit of at least a section of the Socialist party by the proceedings at a Socialist meeting at Runanga, particulars of which were supplied by the Grcymouth correspondent of the Press last week. The chairman's speech was remarkable enough—he referred to the late King as "a monarch whose life and interests were opposed" to those of the working class—but it was tame in comparison with the speeches that followed it. A Mn. Hickey "condemned the waste of public money in connection with the King's death. .... The King was dead —let the living be their care." To this person the mourning .of the nation was ''hypocrisy": "It was very questionable whether, throughout the whole of New Zealand, a single individual who prated about his sorrow lost a minute's, sleep or missed a meal in consequence." Another speaker declared the nation's grief to bo "cant and humbug." A fourth said he was not going to shed "crocodiles' tears or speak with 'bated breath about any old gentleman who had reached the allotted span and had departed for glory." His late Majesty was also described as "one who stood for the perpetuation of a system that doomed millions to an existence little better than that of beasts." It is impossible to believe that those who make use of such expressions are not sincere in their beliefs. The public will therefore be able to realise from them something of the Socialist character. We wish that the general body of workingmen, in their disgust at the sentiments which we have quoted, would realise that it is this hateful spirit that is hoping to succeed by operating through the organisations of the workers.

We give in another column the observations of the Sydney Bulletin upon the Prime Minister's "sinking fund" proposal. Whatever may be said of our Sydney contemporary's general politics, its financial articles are everywhere respected as generally very sound and penetrating. The Prime Minister's argument that the sinking funds scheme will aid the country's credit is interpreted by our' contemporary as evidence that "his object in providing for a sinking fund is, not that he may get out of debt, but that he may get into debt more easily." The vital weakness of the Government's proposal, which wo pointed out in out article of Ma-y 11, is well handled:

• The debt can only bo honestly got rid of by putting some actual suiplus of revenue over expenditure into the hands of sinking fund commissioners. The trouble is that, when this gees- on contemporaneously with borrowing, the. sinking fund contribution may be to all intents and purposes borrowed. If a country is borrowing nothing—if it is relying wholly and solely upon itself— then every contribution to the sinking fund must be tho real thing. But if a country is borrowing, then it may pay ont of loans for something that ought to bo paid for with revenue, and puss the amount to the sinking fund—an indirect way of providing the sinking fund out of loans. No country can be sure, then, that its sinking fund is the real thing while it also pursues a borrowing policy. There has been so much financial jugglery of the kind described that Parliament will have good reason for insisting that the sinking fund scheme shall be furnished with the most stringent safeguards.

A Bill was lately introduced in the House of Commons which must be considered of much interest to a country that maintains a Tourist Department and that has been trained to think of its extranational activities as useful "advertisements for New Zealand." This Bill proposes to authorise any local authority to expend a proportion of the rates "in advertising in newspapers, or by guides, or pamphlets, or in such other manner as the local authority may determine, and in maintaining at railway stations and other places advertisements relating to the advantages and attractions of the district." A Bill on the same lines has been introduced in four sessions, but has failed to pass, and Blackpool remains the only local authority in England or Wales possessing the statutory power which the new Bill seeks to make general. The proposal is part of the new Radical movement in municipal life, and it embodies a very objectionable principle, the logical trend of which appears in a decision by the St. Helens Corporation to insert in its next P.arliamentaiy Bill clauses authorising the council to expend money in advertising tho town, to build shops or other premises on land belonging to the corporation, and to grant preferential rates to persons or firms commencing now industries in the- borough. The St. Helens proposals arc all part of one and the same idea, and it is fortunate that these proposals have been announced, for they have led even the Municipal Journal, for all its strongly Radical views, to point out the rednclio ad absurd urn that disposes of the notion of preferential rates for new industries: "If subsidies are to be granted by remitting rates., why not also by the payment to the respective industries of contributions out of rates?" And why not, we may add, thus subsidise existing industries to keep thorn in the town 1 As to tho advertising of attractions and advantages, tho only immediate practical objection to it is thai) it is a waste of' money. But the great objection to it is that it establishes a precedent from which it is easy to proceed to worse things, as the St. Hclorjßft.CorporaUon has shown he.

It is stated that at the next meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board additional facts will be available which will throw further light on the mysterious loan transaction which has aroused such interest throughout the commercial community. We trust that this is correct. The sooner the fuli facts are before the public the better. At the present time it is known that a draft prospectus for a Harbour Board loan of half a million was prepared without the authority of the Board, embodied in which was a letter or certificate containing misleading information, and bearing the name of the then chairman of the Board. This letter or certificate purports, we believe, to be addressed to the Board's bankers. The then chairman of the Board denies that bo ever wrote the letter or certificate attributed to him, and he is supported in this statement by the General Manager of the Bank. Who, then, did write it, and attach the then chairman's name to it? Our evening contemporary, in a reference to the matter last evening, expresses the following curious opinion:—

From the beginning of this loan topic we have been inclined to the view that THERE HAS BEES. NOTHING DISCLOSED INCONSISTENT WITil STRAIGHTFORWARD BUSINESS facts, though some points, on which there has oecn somo regrettable misunderstanding, remain to be explained when the Board secures all the necessary evidence.

The capital letters are our '>wn. The paragraph, it will be seen, is curiously worded. What it wishes to convey by "straightforward business facts" is, presumably, straightforward business dealings. or methods. Wo can only assume that our contemporary has confined its reading on the subject to the somewhat abbreviated report ;f tin , , last meeting of the Harbour Board which appeared in its own columns. Had it read ihe fiillor reports published- by its contemporaries, we feel confident it could not have continued to hold the opinion expressed. In fa:e ?;f the denial of the ex-chairman of the Board that he ever wrote the misleading letter published under his name—a denial supported, as stated, by the Manager of the Bank to whom the letter was alleged to have been addressed -it is amazing, to find anyone professing to regard the matter as a straightforward business transaction. Is it a customary thing in conneption with substantial loan dotations, involving, as was the case in the present instance, a sum of £500,000, to take such dangerous liberties with the name of the chairman of an important body ? Or is it customary for anyone to act at all in euch matters without the authority of the local body concerned? Of course it is not. Those members of the Board who are endeavouring to get to the bottom of this very curious business will find themselves supported by the weight of public opinion. It is their plain and obvious duty in the interests of the Board and of the community to clear up the mystery and place the responsibility for what has happened on the proper shoulders.