NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1569, 12 October 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

It is all to the good that the part the Dominions must take in the naval defence of the Empire continues a subject of active discussion everywhere. Most interest centres just now in the position of Canada, whose Government will shortly make a definite announcement of policy. Curiously onough. Sib Wilfiud Laueiee, who used to be regarded as a. leader of forward Imperial thought, and who certainly did much in past years to set in motion, the present strong current of thoughtupon the naval problem of the Empire, seems to have retreated into a narrow and' backward frame of mind. At a luncheon in Ottawa towards the end of August he spoko in deprecation of the talk of the German menace. He declared that "them was plenty of room in the sun for Germany along with other nations," and that Britain was not in danger. In deprecat-' ing the "mad raco of armaments," he said, "Thank the Lord wo havo been freo on this Continent from that." "In this country," ho went on to say. "we novor think of war," and ho also observed that "whereas Groat Britain thought all the timo of armaments, Canada thought all tho time of railways." This attitude, some British newspapers say, does not surpriso them in Sin AVilfhid Laurier; but to most pooplo it will be genuinely surprising. "Novor to think of war." to leavo Britain to do all tho thinking about armaments, and wonder why Britain worries about it—that is not the policy for any Dominion to follow, and wo cannot believe that it is a policy that more than a very few people in any Dominion would support.

The Ausfcrnlian , High Court's dismissal of Urn Argus's appeal ngainst the validity of the Electoral Act, which it infringed liy defying the provision Mint during an election political ni'tieloß bearing upon the election must lie signed may do a little towards restoring the AttorneyGeneral's lost faith in the competence and candour of the High Court Judges. We shall await with much interest the reasoning which led the Court to reject the appeal unanimously. .The ruble message merely reported Hint the Oourt bad decided that if tho Federal Legislature enn regulate tho conduct of elections it can iTßuliilo prone criticism. Tho Court'a judgraant will bo accepted

by all sensible laymen as conclusive; but it is very difficult to see how the liberty of the press to give forth opinions in its own way • can be brought within the area which Parliament can regulate as the regulator of electoral machinery. No valid reason for compelling'the signing of editorials has ever been advancedno valid reason, that is to say, which can find a justification in the only thing with which Parliament is concorned, viz., the public interest. The exaction of responsibility for publication and for the consequences of publication was already met in the imprints of the newspapers. We need not go over the ground again, however, but it may safely be conjectured that the High Court did not say anything to suggest that, apart from other considerations than the fact that there is now a special law on the subject, the public interest requires the signing of editorials. It will be interesting to see what the newspapers will do when the general election comes round.

Me. F W. Hirst, who is the editor ot the Economist, recently told the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce what war in the North Sea would mean. He is a pacifist in' politics, but he is a good economist. "What," he asked, "does war with Germanymean to the whole country, and especially to the East Coast ports from Aberdeen to London, which represent a full half of the whole shipping trade?" The meaning is plain m the fact that British trade with Germany is worth nearly 80 millions a year; and Germany is not the only country doing enormous business by sea with Britain. This trade would largely cease. Mβ. Hirst thinks that the risks to shipowners will make it completely cease, but here Mr. Hirst invades a province of which he knows nothing—the province of naval tactics. It is conceivable, that is to say, that some trade could safely go on by the grace of British naval arrangements. The fact remains that war in the North Sea would be a shattering calamity. "If there is war with Gormany," said Mr. Hirst in an unusually picturesque passage, "grass will grow in the streets of every great port, British, German, Belgian, Dutch, Scandinavian, or Russian." Well, if it must come to that, it must, and Britain must put up with it, as she has put up with worse things. And what of the Dominions? We have heard has—that we export more per head than Britain, more than almost any country in r the world. So much more', it follows, is our national vulnerability in the case of a naval war of the big dimension. And it is a consciousness_ of this that lies behind the anxiety of those patriotic people who, advocating adequate military and naval activity, aim almost more at the cultivation of a patriotic and strengthening sobriety and sense of responsibility than at the establishment of large fighting strength. If we do all we can in the way of defence by land and sea, we cannot keep the world at bay; but we can get into good condition to recover from the economic effects of a great war. If we were simply to go on hiring defence and having a nigh old time on borrowed money, we should be out of condition, morally and economically, for the economip struggle into which a great war would plunge us.

Long-sustained and vigorous as has been the controversy .over NoLicense and Prohibition, there are difficulties on both sides which have never been met, and sometimes never properly grasped. Most of the controversy has proceeded along statistical lines, and both parties have produced abundance of tables satisfactory to themselves. Statistics, however, are extremely tricky things in thie question. What surprising results they can discover is manifest from an analysis, which that excellent London journal, the Eye Witness, has made of the recent English Blue Book on the Liquor Laws. Excluding London, and taking the seventy English county boroughs, the hye Witness divides them into groups of ten, beginning with thoso which have the least number of licenses per population, and ending with those with the greatest. Hore is the result:—

Average Average n of of On Licenses Convictions per 10,000 per 10,000 popu- popu■n. , , , , lation. ' lation. First ten boroughs ... 10.01 49.74 Second ten boroughs... 15.97 6309 Ihird ten boroughs ... 21.05 59.12 I ourth ten boroughs 23.88 37 20 Fifth ten boroughs ... 25.87 3718 Sixth ten boroughs ... 31.61 34*02 Seventh ten boroughs 43.G2 21.80 Applying the same method to the 41 English county divisions (excluding London), but grouping them in fives (the last is a six), the following appears:— Average Average n of of On Licenses Convictions per 10,000 per 10,000 porju- popur,. . . ~ lation. lation. iirst five countiee...... 16.80 53.30 second five countiee... 22.82 30 Iβ Third live counties ... 28.18 25^05 Fourth five oountiea ... 32.20 24*80 Fifth five counties ... 35.83 ' nSi Sixth fivo oounties ... 39,80 30 58 Seventh five counties- 40.63 2153 Eighth 6ix counties ... 62.50 12.29 "It will bo seen -that these figures show an almost steady fall in the proportion of convictions as the proportion of public-houses increases. Now, ndds our contemporary, "taking the figures wo havo given ns a whole, what would a fair statisti- ?, ian> " nblns °d either way, make of them? Theso are very surprisinc figures, but the standing of tno Eye Witness may bo taken to guarantee their correctness.