NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1697, 13 March 1913, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Although the Hon. James Allen's chief concern, during his present visit to England, is to attend to the ! business which took him there, he cannot, of course, avoid being mado the subject of no little attention and publicity. We were told yesterday that a special reference was mado to his visit in the King's Speech, and there can be little doubt that ho will have come to a provisional understanding with the British Befence authorities as good as we have a right to expect. For, excepting Mr. Allen, no New Zealand Cabinet Minister who has visited London has united keenness for defence with a real knowledge of the subject. At the luncheon given in his honour in London on Monday, Mr. Allen appears to have made some special references to intra-Imperial trade. This is such a very delicate topic, and so productive, of bitter words, that it is always pleasant when one can- hear a responsible statesman make a positive statement upon it which will not provoke a breach of the peace. Mr. Allen emphasised the doctrine that the Mother Country should seek to rely more upon her trade with the Dominions. In his statement' to the Morning Post, it will be' remembered, Mr. Allen, after affirming that New Zealanders are persuaded that Britain's tariff is Britain's affair, and that the principle of preference to Britain is universally accepted here, said that "so firmly rooted is that policy in our country that if we had any development at all in this matter it would be in the direction of lowering the duties on British goods rather than raising theni." Of course, tariff negotiations are impossible just now between Britain and the Dominions, but the New Zealand point of view is worth occasional repetition. On the larger question of defence, it is agreeable to have Mr. Lewis Harcourt's assurance that his Government is grateful for Mr. Allen's advice and assistance. That the Minister's visit will be very beneficial to this oountry in more than one respect nobody at all will really doubt.

They will bo foolish who dismiss as merely one of the periodical eructations of Chauvinism the statements in the Cologne Gazette and 'the Berlin Lokal- Anzeiger, of which summaries are cabled to us to-day. The Gazette, referring to the Army Bill (which provides for a substantial strengthening of the German Army), miys in cffcct that the nation will approve the Bill if it is

told plainly that danger threatens from France. France is represented as having deliberately planned, by

coming to terms with Britain and Russia, to take its revenge for • the war of 1870-71. "It is certain," says the Gazette, "that we shall have to cross swords with France." At this time of day Germany cannot hope to make Franco appear in the eyes of the world as the aggressor in any quarrel, just as it is impossible for Germany to get anybody outside Germany to believe the grotesque fiction that Great Britain has,aggressive designs. There has been abundance of evidence, on the contrary, that Germany is willing, and desires, to make trouble with Franco and llttssia, if not also with Britain. Between Russia and France there is. an Alliance—a 'fact which was lately underlined very heavily by the dispatch of M. Delcasse to St. Petersburg—but there is only an understanding between France and Britain. For some years it has been pretty commonly believed that Britain is engaged to send an army to the assistance of France in the event of war, but, as a cable message told us yesterday, this rumour has been positively denied in the House by Mr. Asquith. A war between France and Germany, in which Britain can remain neutral, is conceivable; but who can foresee all the, complications 1 The rising war spirit in both those countries should warn Britain to be prepared, and should also warn the Dominions to set their houses in order against the day of trouble.

Thb anti-Reform organ in Christchurch, which led the reckless attack upon the Government in connection with the case of Mr. Brighton, of Southland, printed about twelve violent editorials inside, a month. Practically every other day, that is to say, it told'its readers that Mr. Massey was proved guilty either of a culpable blunder or of a burgling of the national estate or something of the kind. Ono might have expected that on Monday it would have had some apology to make; but it had not a word to say. The Christchurch Press noted its contemporary's signal failure to make an immediate withdrawal of its objectionable insinuations. The anti-Reform organ has not withdrawn, and (it is clear) will not withdraw its insinuations and charges against Mr. Massey, but after thinking the matter oyer, it yontrived to say something on Tuesday. It hit upon this ingenious idea: that "it would not have required costly legal proceedings to make thd position plain if the Legislature had done its full duty, and Mr. Masse? must bear the chief share of the blame for the ambiguity of the Land Laws Amendment Act of last session" ! Ingenious, wo said, but most foolish; yet the best that could be done. Becauso some reckless papers persuaded poor Mr. Brighton to rush into Court, only to be tossed . forth again, Mr, Massey is to blame! (Mr. Brighton is not the first catspaw of the "Liberals.") But here we have it. Mr. Massey is to blame because an ill-advised man went to law. So also, Mr. Massey must be blamed and hurled from: office because he has so dismally failed to remove all ambiguities from all the laws and the flood of litigation under several hundred Acts still goes on. Every civil case, of any nature whatsoever, is proof that Mr; Massey has betrayed the nation. It strikes us that the flustered anti-Reformers must be near to bedrock. We may note that the Christchurch paper, which, in common with others of its sort, insinuated that Mr. Massey tried to do the State an injury, actually says now that no one imputes an ulterior motive to the Prime Minister in framing his Act. Yes, it is bcdrock.