NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1440, 15 May 1912, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

It is a little curious that almost the whole of the Anglo-German controversy is conducted without any reference to tho Anglo-Japanese Treaty. A few months ago, as a result of the negotiations for Anglo-American arbitration and of the Anglo-ltussian arrangements, the Jingo press of Japan, or a section of it, was exclaiming that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance virtually dead. The more responsible Japanese newspapers, however, take another view. Thus the semi-official C'huo Shimbun on March 19 wrote in warm approval of the first Treaty and its effects. As to the efforts of the' London Times and other British newspapers to support tho Treaty against its enemies, the Cliuo said that this anxiety had "caused some astonishment in Japan, for there is no doubt that the great mass of the people of both nations feel the necessity of the permanence of the alliance. It went on to discuss tho useful European effects oi the Treaty, and concluded by saying that "the present rapprochement between Japan and Russia is due to the latent influence of the alliance." The Japan Times on the same day rejoiced that Japan had followed Britain into goodwill towards Bussia. Its article contained this highly interesting passage:

Wβ remember hearing from t.he l/>to Prince Ito that when in conversation with tho Marquis of Lansdowne""the*Frince intimated that after the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was completed he hoped that Japan would enter into an alliance with Russia. Tho Marquia replied at once, "So much the better." It is in a similar spirit that we regard the growing intimacy between Great Britain and Russia. Wβ do not think, however, that the allianco has become less valuable on that account. Both Japanese cordiality and English intimacy with Russia are, we are bound to think, conditional on the Ansrlo-Jananese Alliance, and when that alliance breaks down the present understanding between the three Powers is bound to receive a great shock.

It is interesting to recall that this valuable Treaty, renewed last year by the British Liberal Government, was chiefly assailed in ignorant circles in Australasia because it was the work of a Unionist Government.

When the last English mail to hand left London, early in April, the great coal strike was collapsing. In time, perhaps, we shall get a full and detailed estimate of the cost of the strike to Britain. In the meantime a Labour correspondent supplies the Manchester Guardian with some arresting figures. By April 1 the loss of time in the coal and iron mining industries had amounted to over thirty million days, and the wage loss to over £7,000,000. Part of this latter loss was of course borne by various industrial insurance schemes such as strike pay, and unemployment benefits from trade unions or friendly societies. The loss was, however, a dead one, an eating into accumulated savings. The Guardian's correspondent supplies this table of losses: — Trades. Days lost. Wage loss. Mining; industry 29,500,000 .£7,570,000 Other industries (mechanics and labourers) 16,800,000 3,250,000 Agents, travellers, clerks, warehousemen, etc 2,720,000 1,050,000 .49,020,000 The loss in days and the number of persons involved in strikes and lockouts for the first decade of the century compared with tho results given above are estimated as follows; — No.of Durawork- tion in No. of ppople working disputes, involved, days. Ten years, 19011910 4,037 2,200,000 41,600,000 Five weeks, March 1912 •. 1 2,500,000 49,000,000 There will probably be some pondering before another coal strike is undertaken, since it can do as much damage to the nation in five weeks as ordinary strikes can do in ten years.

The idea that Mr. Fowlds would prove acceptable to the Labour party as leader which seems to have gained ground in some directions does not appnar to be at all well grounded. The interviews which we publish tnis morning with α-rtain of (he local Labour leaders make it Hear tliaL while the single-Lax views of Mi;. I'Vmvi.ds arc not regarded h.s a liar to bin nrlniipfipn i<? the fiautiiig ranks of tftbour. hia eudden coavnrsioa to

llii! views of the party has not carried him very far into their confidence He is welcomed as a recruit—a useful recruit, perhaps, but that is all. While this may prove a little disappointing to some of the admirers of the ex-Miiiister, and perhaps to Mr. Fowlds himself, it is after all only what was to be expected. Apart from the fact that Mr. Fowlds has yet to show that he possesses any capacity for leadership, it is a little unkind to those who have been associated with the Labour movement for so long to expect them now that it has been galvanised into life to stand aside for an outsider. Whether Mn. Fowlds would do any better than those he has now thrown in his lot with is an open question. He certainly has the advantage of Ministerial experience in his favour, and is a fairly good platform speaker, but it is difficult to picture him arousing the enthusiasm of the multitude as an advocate of Labour's cause.