The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1927. NOTED JOURNALISTS VIEWS.

Hokitika Guardian, 3 November 1927, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1927. NOTED JOURNALISTS VIEWS.

Aktkk the Peace Conlerence at V ersailles was finished and the fruits of its labours were before the world, a great many people were impressed hv the amount of ignorance that some of the great men who drafted the treaties had displayed in regard to matters of fact that all intelligent readers of modern history might be supposed to know. A well-informed publicist’s opinion was that the best thing that the Powers could have done would have been to delegate the task of redrawing the map of Europe not to diplomats and statesmen, but to the journalists and special correspondents. And one of the half-dozen newspaper men mentioned as knowing more about the actual condition of Europe and its p.coI pies than “all the Big Four put toI get her” was Mr Henry Wickham | Steed. Mr Wickham Steed has had a ! long and distinguished journalistic carI ecr. For sixteen years he was foreign 1 correspondent at Rome and Vienna for j the “Times” then, during the Great I War, he was its foreign editor; and from 1919, when peace came, to 1922, he was general editor. Since 1923 he has been proprietor and editor ol the “Review of Reviews,” which in bis hands has become one of the ablest and most instructive of contemporary periodical dealing with the political and social questions of the day. As has been already suggested, comments a northern writer, there arc few men alive who knows so much of “foreign affairs” in the journalistic and pilitical sense as Mr Stood; and his unusual jiowers of expression, his self-con-trol, and liis singularly well-balanced i mind render him a most effective and influential guide and leader of public opinion. For all these reasons the speech that Mr Steed has delivered at New York on naval armament deserves the careful consideration, not only of his American hearers, but of that wider audience to which he is able to appeal throughout the English-speaking world. It. was judicious of Mr Steed to preface--1 hi.s remarks about the recent Naval Conference with the assurance that, so far as Britain is concerned, the Americans are quite at liberty to build the largest navy the world has ever known. But be gently reminded bis bearers that Britain has her own commercial and Imperial interests to consider, and she cannot l>e expected to ignore them. However, the most important feature of his speech was his reference to the British representatives at the Geneva Conference as an “Admiralty delegation,” and his suggestion that if “the broader questions involved” bad not been left to technical experts, but bad been considered seriously by the British Government beforehand. something much more decisive ami satisfactory might have been effected in the cause of the world’s peace. This last criticism of the recent Conference has been elaborated bv Mr Steed in the current issue of the “Review of Reviews.” In an article dealing with Lord Roliert Cecil’s resignation, Mr Steed on th« whole supports those who consider that the British Government has not given the League its whole-hearted support, and that it is therefore largely responsible for this last failure. He even applauds Professor Gilbert-Murray's recent letter to the “Times” which asserts that “the people have to choose between two practical policies**’—the League and “the next war.” Here it is difficult to follow Mr Steed. His argument, like Murray's implies that no possible alternative is available to prevent another-and worse international conflict. But surely, when we consider what had been done in the hundred years that followed Waterloo to avert warfare—when wo remember the extraordinary extension of the process of peaceful settlement by arbitration up to the very month in which Germany invaded Belgium—we may be allowed to dissent. Steed, like Murray and Cecil, is disappointed with the League. But have they not expected too much of it? And can we afford to be so certain that there is “no other way” of securing peace.

The petrol tax which is now in force will have rather a mixed reception. The matter has been long under consideration, but in the end the Governlpciit move was .somewhat of a surprise though the Prime Minister has been hinting that more revenue must he raised for the upkeep of the roads. It has been rather remarkable bow the cost of the upkeep and lonslvuctiou has mounted up as a result of the swiftly moving motor traffic, and the consequence was that an undue burden ".is thrown on the rates. The petrol tax, it has been argued often, is the fairest all round tax, for the more the roads are used, and the .greater the speed travelled, .so will the user pay cut more towards the levy for road up-keep. Tt is not very clear yet how lar the rates will be relieved by the new tax. A proportion of the income will go to main highways, and another quote to “sohighways, and another quota to “seSome provision is to he made for boroughs and cities (the hitter mainly) and the balance will he used to meet sinkings funds for money borrowed tor roads. Outside of the payments to boroughs, the local bodies will not, apparently, receive direct advantage. Feme relief may he forthcoming under what are styled “secondary roads, 11 tint il is doubtful if secondary roads” are to he brought up to the standard of main highways whether any monetary relief will he coming to the ratepayers. \s to the payers of tax their satisfaction will he in improved roads—assuming that tlio three-quarters of a million to lie raised supplies good roads. The petrol tax. however, is to lie devoted only to the main highways and “secondary roads.” There are the general roads of every locality to lie considered, and apparently they are not in the scheme of benefit. Probably the petrol tax'payers will desire to see district roads brought into the scheme, in which event, he would derive more satisfaction for his scheme. All motorists do not coniine their traffic to main highways. The heavy traffic, in particular, finds its way on to all kinds of roads, hut apparently the'petrol tax is not to help that class of roads. That scorns very unfair to local bodies which already find the heavy tax fees inadequate to maintain district roads. It would therefore appear that the new taxation is designed .specially for main ami subsidnry highways, and that the general marls of a rountry district will lint ho assisted by any additional income. That is a serious defect in the taxation scheme which the local bodies and ratepayers generally should take up with the Government.