NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1183, 19 July 1911, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The new Anglo-Japanese Treaty will bo warmly approved by all sensible people in New Zealand, and will have the result, we trust, of ending the somewhat hysterical talk about a Japanese attack on Australia in 1015, when the old Treaty was to expire. The great value of the old Treaty was that it relieved Britain of all anxiety about her naval position in the Pacific, and enabled her to concentrate her strength in European waters. The essential feature of the Treaty was its enactment that in defence of Far Eastern rights Britain and Japan would act in unison in the event of cither's quarrel with a third Power. The new Treaty maintains this provision, with this difference: that if Britain (or Japan) goes to war with a third party with which Japan (or Britain) has contracted an Arbitration Treaty,'the obligation of joint action shall not hold. This simply means, if Japan concludcs an Arbitration Treaty with America, that Japan, America and Britain are linked in peace. So far as Australasia is concerned the great fact is, as the Acting-Premier of New South Wales has pointed out in a vigorous rebuke to the anti-Japanese sensationalists, that the Treaty "effectually disposes of the yellow peril scare.'' It is significant that the tone of the German press comments, as cabled, are of a kind that suggest a deep disappointment of the hopes that the old Treaty would fall through and throw Japan into the arms of Germany. According to the London Times the new arrangement lias the approval of the Dominion Prime Ministers. That docs, indeed, appear to be quite certain, when we remember that the delegates to the Conference wero shown the inner workings of British foreign policy and that the British Government committed itself to the principle of consultation in matters affecting the overseas dependencies. It is pleasant to think that there is no longer any audience, except amongst the scaremongers of Australasia, for any further talk about the menace of Asiatic invasion.

It would seem that our evening ' contemporary not only regards "in- - consistency" and "independence" as interchangeable terms, lmt when. it sweepinglv denounces tho Government as one in whose promises "no longer faith is to be reposed" considers it is justified in making a mental reservation where Sir James Carroll and Mr. Ngat.v are concerned. It admits that it in unqualified terms pronounced tho Government to be utterly untrustworthy—lacking in backbone, bowing to everyone it cannot bend, and concerned only with retaining office; but says that it is quite consistent to endow it also with the virtues of courage and firmness where it suits its purpose so to do. Of course in order to make this attitude assume some semblance of reasonableness it is necessary to confuse the issue a little. To do this it contrasts the vacillating attitude of the Government on the land question with its determination to protect the Maoris in respect of their lands, and seeks to make it appear that the inconsistency with which it is charged lies in bestowing blame in the one case and approval in the other. Unfortunately for our contemporary its evasion is a little too obvious. Nothing of the kind was suggested. What it actually did was to condemn the Government outright as one which could no longer be trusted to keep its promises—that its actions tend always to the one end of retaining office. It did not qualify its statement in any way. Quite the reverse. It further described the Government party as "the last feeble dregs of an admirable tradition," and added: "There is good ground for affirming that during the past year every action, every legislative measure, has bte.n regarded from the standpoint of How many votes will it catch us ' llow many votes will it lose us'i" Of course our contemporary may have changed its opinion since then—it certainly would not surprise us to learn that it has done so a good many times. It is unfortunate that at this late stage of 'its career the I'ost should find it necessary to so elaborately explain what its policy and attitude towards political parties really are. But no one is likely to question that that necessity existed. Its final resolve to continue to risk the maledictions of both parties and its refusal to shrink from "paying the price" should appeal to the hearts, if not to the heads, of its readers. Our impression was ' that it had already paid tho pricethat the explanations which it has felt called on to make to its readers were forced from it in an endeavour to win back the influence which itsshall we say "independence"—has 1 lost it. But we confess that it is difficult at any time to know quite what our contemporary does want, or even on occasions what it desires the public to understand are its real opinions.

It is always a pleasure to read the annual address of tho Chairman of the ltacing Conference, Sir George Clifford, partly because of the admirable manner in which the head of the Turf in the Dominion discourses on the sport of racing, and partly because of the useful and cnljghtcning matter which he invariably introduces. We have not the opportunity to-day to discuss the questions raised by Sir George Clifford, but we would commend his views to the attention not only of racegoers but to the public gencrarly. No one can dispute that there is a good deal of room for improvement in connection with horse-racing in New Zealand; but it is equally obvious that the evils attached to the' sport are in certain quarters greatly exaggerated and tho advantages entirely overlooked or ignored. The passion for interference with the recreations of the people which exists amongst a certain class of worthy people is, so far as it is directed against horse-racing, due in a large measure to ignorance. If sonic of those who picture a race meeting as a hot bed of evil would adopt the

suggestion of the Chairman of Iho Racing Conference and pay a visit to Trent ham to-day they might not become converts to the sport, but they \vonld cciainly have lo modify their idea:; and moderate their language concerning it.

Tm; public may be excused if it feels exceedingly puzzled by the Acting-Prime Minister's curious and interesting reply to the deputation from the racing clubs that waited on him on Monday. His little, discourse on the psychology of public opinion on the racing, question was sound enough, but we cannot say so much for his conception of the duties of government. He told the deputation in effcct—wc summarise from our report—that while the Government "cannot stultify" itself by asking Parliament to tear up the report of the Commission, it will extend its patronage to any private member who will move in the matter. Could anything be more pusillanimous? The Government proposes the Commission and proposes that its report shall be binding, and when the report appears and creates a great volume of discontent, the Government lacks the courage to admit its mistake but does not lack in willingness to help to undo its work. This is a truly ridiculous situation, and finely illustrative of the Government's conception of its duty to the public. Most people, remembering the readiness of the Government in the past to adopt or reject or ignore the reports of special Commissions, will smile at the ludicrous air of virtue in the Acting-Prime Minister's declaration that the Government cannot stultify itself. Why should it not 1 Oneo more will not greatly matter. The report was bound to create discontent whatever the Commission might do. The situation that has been created will be a warning to Parliament to consider more closely the proposals that comc from the Government before agreeing to them. ° |