NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1125, 12 May 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Mr. Asquith's statement upon the Referendum, apropos of the position in Australia, is one with which one may agree. But he has never 3'et explained how he, who so badly wants "the will of the people" to rule, refuses to allow the people to say what its will really is. He cannot escape from this dilemma. The inconsistency of the Radical attitude is luminously revealed in a letter to the London Times by Lord Robert Cecil: Lord Morlcy's hypothesis is that on a Referendum both Home Rule and Tariff Reform would be rejected, and he draws a lurid picture of the Ministerial confusion that would ensue. But what is the alternative? Clearly that both those measures should become law in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Does anyone, whatever his Irish or fiscal opinions may be, seriously think (hat would be desirable?

Lord Morley evidently thinks so; at any rate he is determined to act, for the present, as if he thought so. The dilemma of the Radical is complete. There is no way out for him at all. A politician who insists that the will of the nation shall 'prevail, and who steadfastly refuses to let the nation declare its will for itself, is patently desirous of success, not for what the nation wants, but for what he thinks it ought to want. In his_ letter Lord Robert makes a point, to which ever those who, like ourselves; can see crave disadvantages as well as encr-

mous advantages in the Referendum should give some attention: At present legislative proposals are too often draughted to gratify extremists, because of tlie great power which a wellorganised and unreasonable group of electors can exorcise in certain constituencies. . . . Unthr the Referendum extremists would be submerged in the general body of the voters in the whole country. The result would be that Bills would be draughted in as conciliatory a manner as possible, so as to attract the support of the great mass of moderate men. Under the existing system nothing is done unless sufficient steam can be generated to carry an epoeh : making reform. Under the Referendum the progress would be more gradual (though not, I think, slower), and if a mistake were made it would bo easy to retrace it before irreparable injury were inflicted. Last night's Gazette contains fuller particulars of the working of the railways for the year ended March 31 last, but none that throw much further light upon the manner in which the Minister has obtained his £4 Is. 3d. per cent, on capital. The point which remains for present examination is one with which the public is now fairly familiar, namely, the relative earnings of the South Island and North Island systems. The gross totals arc given in the following tabic: Net Receipts. Expenditure, revenue. North 1,792,779 1,175,107 G17.372 South 1,701,103 U27.5G5 573.53S The 1150 miles of line in the North Island, that is to say, returned a net revenue of over £40,000 more than the IGC3 miles in the South. The net earnings per mile are: North, £536 175.; South, £357 16s — an advantage of £170 per mile, or just over 50 per cent., m favour of the North. Some of our Southern friends have at various times said that it is not fair to give these figures without giving also the interest on capital cost. To avoid even the suspicion of unfairness, we shall give them. The capital cost (opened and unopened lines), on March 31, 1910, of the Southern system was £16,499,404, and of the Northern system £13,655,054. The interest in the following table is calculated at 3} per cent:

Net Interest Kesiilt for revenue. Bill. Year. £ .6 X North R17..172 ' 512,004 105,308 profit South 57.1,533 615.731 45,193 loss This is merely a repetition of what has been happening year after year, but it contains a lesson that mustbo repeated until Parliament can no longer refrain from insisting on an attempt at equity in railways policy and in railways-construction policy. Further comment is unnecessary. There is one point, however, that Mr. Millar should inquire into. In all cases but one the figures (receipts and expenditure) for the last four weeks of the year are larger only by small percentages than the. corresponding figures, for the year 1900-10. For some reason, however, the expenditure on the lines in this island for- thai/ period is given as having increased by over 60 percent. This is cither a mistake, or some little trick of book-keeping. The Minister might ask his staff about it.

We quoted yesterday the latest figures to date regarding registration under the compulsory military training system. Although over 42,000 of those liable to register have done so or been accounted for, iherc is still, according to the estimate, something like .28,000 persons . between the ages of 14 and 21 years who have up to the. present failed to'comply with the law. It is just as well that these youths and young men should realise that there is- very little time left in which they can register without escaping the "penalties attached to neglect of this duty. After June 2 thoso who have failed to send in their names in the prescribed manner will have to face the consequences. Judging from letters from correspondents there are still many people who are. under the impression that every person who registers will be called on to serve until he reaches the age of 25. This, of course, is not so. All youths arc expected to serve through the cadet stages; that is, up to 18 years of age; but afterwards only the required proportion will be drafted on into the Territorials. A proportion of those over 18 years of age at time of registration will escape service altogether. The compulsory scheme of defence is universal only in the sense that all are made liable to be called on to serve in the Defence forces. The country could not under normal conditions afford to equip and train the whole of t!>e population between the ages of 14 and 21 up to the age of 25 years.