CURRENT TOPICS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 190, 21 November 1910, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS.

TO PEOTECT A FEW. The protection by a stiff tariff of any New Zealand industry which employ* a small number of men may seem sound enough, if the public which buys the kind of goods which are to be protected are protected too. We have advanced the belief before that the man who wishes to buy an article does not worry whence it comes if it is the article he requires and at the price he deems fair for it. In tinkering with farm implements and machinery required for our most important industry to which every other phase of commerce is a mere bagatelle—the State may tread heavily on the toes of the farmer. It cannot afford to do this. It may be true that New Zealand, if allowed, could produce agricultural implements as cheaply as do England and America, and that the demand of the allied ironfounder? and their employees for a 3o per cent, duty on such machinery will be received by users of such machinery with acclamation. At present such machinery is imported to New Zealand free of duty. The only question for the users of machinery is, supposing a tariff wall excludes the foreign article, whether

they will be served as well and as cheaply as before. The Minister's answer to the deputation demanding a 33 per eent. duty was extremely vague, lie promt, ised absolutely nothing except to "look into" the matter. 'ihe New Zealand iron trade is in a bad way. if, by the imposition of a heavy duty, New Zealand manufactures £4,000,U00 worth oi agricultural implements in the next live years, the trade will flourish. Everyone knows that New Zealand could not possibly handle this increase of trade in a specific branch of industry without immense augmentation of plant and man power. If this augmentation of a sparsely manned trade took place, would it be to the disadvantage of the infinitely more numerously manned "trade'' of agriculture? Will the State protect two men to the disadvantage of twenty, to put a reasonable proposition? If such a duty were imposed, it would obviously mean that the iron industry was the most highly protected industry in New Zealand. It is problematical whether the prices of New Zealand machinery would be as small as the prices of the prohibited article, or even as small as the price of the article which paid 33 per cent. duty. It seems impossible that this country can compete in the matter of price with older countries, as the older countries produce the raw material and use it in the country which produces it. Although New Zealand has the raw material, it does not use it. It imports it. This feature, together with the higher price of labor, the inadequacy of plant, the /act that skilled workers, like rawmaterial, would have to be imported if the necessary output was obtained, will apparently make the cost of the finishes article very heavy. The farmers' point of view—and the farmer is the chief consideration —must be that the tariff wall and cessation' of oversea supplies would put him at the absolute mercy oi the local manufacturer. The local manufacturer might be a philanthropist, but this is unlikely. The Government, in deliberating the question, has the simplest possible problem before it: '"Shall we protect a very small minority oi iron-founders, or a very large proportion of the most necessary people in the country—the farmers?"

UPPER HOUSES. Good colonial democrats, however humbly they may worship at the shrine ot an isolated peer, feel that Britons at Home must not be dominated by collective nobles. We all know in a vague kind of way that the peers rule by accident of birth, and that thev have an opportunity to lacerate or veto the work of the people's elected in the Commons. All dominions, even though the bulk of tlieir people affect to gird at the dominancy of a chamber that has not been elected, have carefully copied the Mother of Parliaments in this respect—Federated Australia and South Africa excepted. Mr. W. P. Reeves, principal of the London School of Economics, lately startled some sections of the British community by announcing that the evil influence of the coronetted Upper House was less pronounced than the evil influence of its copies in the colonies. He mentioned that these houses were obstructions to progress, and had existed largely to protect private interests ana property. He gently referred to the fact that colonial upper houses had been more high-handed and less democratic than the peers, and asked his hearers to , scan the history of Victoria since 1860 in order to gather an idea 01 the acts of the people's representatives that had been mutilated or nullified. It is rather remarkable that seats in the upper houses of the dominions are generally regarded as rewards, but not always as rewards for public services. Naturally the New Zealand House of Peers cannot be classed with the other upper houses? of the dominions; and one would like to believe that an appeal to the people tomorrow would send every Legislative Councillor back to his seat. In his references, Mr. Reeves did not include New Zealand, but he did mention that the Upper House in South Africa might give better value for its wages than anv other Upper House, mainly because it was elected on proportional representation. Although possibly election on such a basis would not alter the personnel of our Legislative Council, we are sure that Legislative Councillors, knowing the peoples' love for them, would hail with delight a chance of appeal to the electors. There is hardly tiriie before the close of the session for the Legislative Council to insist that it shall be elected and not nominated.

THE "DECLARATIOX OF LONDON." It was recently cabled that the committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, after considering the Declaration of London on the laws of naval warfare, reported that the Declaration is not satisfactory, as under it British food supplies in neutral vessels are exposed to the risk of deliberate destruction. The Chamber adopted the report. In 1908, ftlie British Government iuvited the various Powers to meet in London, to decide certain vexed questions of international law in naval war, with the view to the establishment of a Prize Court. The conference assembled on December 4, 1908. It was composed of representatives of the following Powers:—Britain, Germany, United States. Austria. Spain, France, Italy, Japan, Holland and Russia. The sittings were concluded in February, 1909, by the Declaration of London, formulating now laws of naval war. The main points dealt with were: Blockade, contraband, seizure of persons on board neutral ships, destruction of neutral prizes, transfer of au enemy's vessel to a neutral flag, convoy, and compensation. With regard to contraband, the British delegates"admitted foodstuffs tothe list of articles, which, under certain conditions, may be contraband (i.e., liable to seizure), though in the past British Governments have always resolutely resisted such an interpretation. The importance of the quest ion is enoras upon it may depend t.he safety of Britain's food supplv in war. "Conditional contraband" became liable to seizure if "it were consigned co nosnie authorities, or to a merchant established in the hostile country, ami when 't i« notorious that such merchant furnishes to the enemy objects and material* oi this nature." The effect of this r'nuse apparently, is that food consigned to any British merchant or trailer n.iVht be seized, as he would b." e-t,;biished" in the "hostile country." and would •vunnlv the enemy," which means f!,„ whole hostile people as well as the British armed forces. A ship is „ot to V li ,ble to seizure unless the enr,; r : ,: n ■„] 0 n board reaches one-lin!' ,■■■•.•' 'tw land has hitheto held that prizes cannot be destroyed at sea proper condemnation bv a co-ivt. Herdelegates, however, agreed to a clause permitting such destruction to in Ire place when the sending of the pri:-:e port would involve danger to'the safety of the warships engaged. Admiral Uihan the well-known American naval expert' m a letter to the Time. Member 14, declares that the nVU 0 f maritime capture is the principal, if nol Uie only strong weapon of offence i] ritlin ■; sesses against the Continent. He added that to bring the pressure of war f 0 i )r , ar on a whole population, a n,i not mPrf ,] v on the armies in the -leM. is the vevv spirit of modern vnrfn'v. ;r.»,J it is the least inhuman of all fl- i in humanities of war, b'-ea-:;, ;; deY/rs war and hastens peace.