NOTES OF TEE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1691, 6 March 1913, Page 4

NOTES OF TEE DAY.

. It .is very pleasing to learn that the discussion between representatives of the Marino Engineers and the Union Steam Ship Company, with the Pitimg Minister as mediator, has opened in a satisfactory manner. The idea of calling in the help of Mr. Massey, who by the way holds the portfolio of Minister of Labour, was a happy one. He is possessed of just that breezy good nature likely to quickly place the parties at the Conference on ail amicable footing, and so far as can bo learned the meeting passed off most harmoniously; and there are now excellent prospects of an agreement being arrived at.

Full justice was not done to the Kev. J. J. Nortfi by the brief telegram from Christchurch recording his opposition to the Education Department's rule that free-place scholars, to keep their places, must objy the law relating to defence. Th 6 full reports, I'd '•''the Christchurch papers sliow&l Sjift'Mn. North talked a great deal of vague and irrelevant nonsense which would more fitly come from the lips of a Labour boss. He actually'savs that the Government is seeking to revive the old Test-Act and Act of Uniformity, and this, although he cannot but know that'there is no likeness, but a world of difference, in effect and in principle, from top to bottom,' between those Acts and the Education Board's regulation. 'We have a right, to expect from a clergyman something less uncandid than this. It is one thing to deny ordinary civil rights to those who will not subscribe to a certain religious doctrine; it is another thing to say that a very special Stab bounty shall be conditional upon obedience to a universal law which has nothing to do with religion. Mn. North'went on to lead to some puny and not very intelligible epigrams (the regulation, he said, "is an attempt to catch butterflies with' a cart-rope") by suggesting that a boy who affirms a conscientious objection to national service is' a hero in embryo, or at any rate "likely to be singularly .capable." Now, does Mr. North really believe this i He doubtless did for the moment, but when he sits down quietly and thinks about it, he will realise that- the people with "conscientious objections" are for the most part Only parading their so-called consciences as part of the Socialistic movement. And he will also realise that if any scholars are debarred by "conscientious objections" to wholesome discipline in their own and the nation's interest, the blame will rest entirely upon tho shoulders of their parents. In the meantime he must not speak, as he did speak on this occasion, as if he could speak for "this democracy." This democracy lias its own ideas, and in this matter it sorrowfully differs from Mr. North.

The admitted necessity that the Dominions shall contribute fairly towards the naval defence of the Empire raises a problem which is too often overlooked—a problem which the superficial Imperialist will perhaps find it difficult to grasp. A day or so ago, the member for Awarua was reported as having expressed himself in favour of the old and now quite discredited policy of, a pure subsidy. Sik Joseph Ward and a good many other people have failed to go beneath the surface of this doctrinc. There arc two courses open to the Empire; the first is the plan of making the Dominions simple contributors to the British Naval Budget in money or in kind, and the second is the development of Dominion activity as a strategical supplement of. the British Naval Budget which would be drawn up precisely as if there were no activity in the Dominions. It is this second course which statesmen everywhere are deciding upon. The Canadian ships, it is expressly stipulated, will be treated by the Admiralty as entirely additional to the British programme of construction, and Australia's policy has necessitated a similar treatment of the battlecruiser Australia. The New Zealand, however, has been included as a ship of the British programme. The London Times, in an article urging that Great Britain must not allow British security to rest "in any degree, however slight," upon contributions from other parts of the Empire, said :

Wo mny accept with pride and honour I lie help I hat: is offered u«. But we cannot si retell- the process without serious and ini-idious risk. There was, no doubt, a moment when (lie citizens ot Home saw littl? to divide the right course, from (lie wrong in just such c(iie<t.ions us this. We know the downward path they followed when onco their sense of obligation 'iu

national defence was blunted by the use of borrowed support. It makes no deference that they wore dealing with the manhood, and we are dealing with the funds, of subject or dependent States. The principle is the same. Wc must scrupulously observe it.

Wo can easily excuse Sin Joseph Waud and the dwindling band who share his views for not having studied this aspect of the question, but it is to be hoped that there will soon be unanimity upon the policy of individual effort on the part of all the States of the Imperial Commonwealth. For in that way only can the Empire avert the 4 'serious and insidious risk" which is invited by the antiquated policy of tribute.

We remarked yesterday in conv menting on the Sydney gas-workers' strike that the action of the M'Gowen Labour Government, in inciting the public to smash the strike by means of free labour, would probably lead to the Labour extremists experiencing difficulty in finding sufficiently strong language in which to express their opinion of the Ministry. A cable message which we publish this morning goes to show that the Melbourne gas-workers at least have not been stuck for forcible epithets with which to denounce the unhappy Labour- Government for attempting to do its duty. Here is the choice effort of the Melbourne men, as cabled:

A meeting of gas-workers carried resolutions expressing the utmost contempt for the puerile and splenetic action of the misnamed Labour Ministry in Xew South Wales in requesting the public to "scab" on the gas employees; and hoping that this unparalleled treachery will meet its just reward at the next election. The only point of interest in this message is the evidence it affords of the grossly wrong conception many of these labour bodies have of' the obligations resting on those chosen to administer the affairs of the country. A Labour Government, according to their ideas, should under all circumstances lend its support to any act of labour tyranny or oppression, even though the whole community should suffer hardship and loss thereby. In other \yords, a Labqur Government has no right to act fairly and honestly in the public interest if by so doing it brings itself into conflict with the interests of any labour organisation which has given it support. And yet the leaders of Labour here and elsewhere ask the public to place themselves under the risk of such a despotism.