CURRENT TOPICS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 224, 27 January 1911, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS

TUB KXAMIXATIOX FKTISH. The recent letter appearing over tile nom-dc-plnmc "Critic" in tills paper and in which the Xew Plymouth High Scliool was criticised, lias led to some interesting expressions of opinion. On general principles and quite irrespective of the •rood or bad management of the Xew Plymouth High Scliool—a subject we may discuss at a later period —we hold, as always, that success at examinations is not' necessarily a criterion of the real or useful ability of any boy or girl. As long as success in examination is made the one essentia! to scholarships, so long will (lie system of cramming and parrnt-lenrnins continue. We suggest, that the basis of comparison by examination results is all wrong. The'test of education, whether scholastic or otherwise, lies in its appli- j cation to useful purposes. A youngster to'not necessarily a fool because he fails

utterly in every other subject he is examined in. The prodigy who gathers in a uozen scholarships cannot possibly apply his hotcn-potch of second-hand information usefully. New Zealand does not want show children or Admiral Crichtons. It is much better that a boy knows all there is to know about one subject than that he should learn by rote all that is written on a dozen subjects and is immediately ''stumped" when ne is asked to apply any portion of his learning. Percentages of marks don't count, percentages of scholarships don't count, and schoolmasters can only aid and not create brilliance. The

''average" fetish is a very tiring business, but even on this basis the Taranaki child emerges triumphant. This from Chief Inspector Ballantyne is indi- i cative: "It would be seen that Taranaki was not only high up in the average, but nad the most brilliant boys." That is to say, of course, that Taranaki has, the most brilliant boys at examinations. The true test of the utility of the education of these boys or any other boys will come after the schooldays. And even if every brilliant schoolboy achieves success in some specialty in life, it cannot then be proved that general all-round success at examinations had the least tiling to do with it. Success lies in the individual and not in memorised knowledge. While the country insists upon regarding each small mind as a vessel into which the same amount and quality of crani should be poured, the real education of the child will only begin when he has left scnool.

THE TIDE OF IMMIGRATION. From an item sent to Australia by the Commonwealth Cable Service it is shown that the number of passengers leaving Britain for Australia last year was four times greater than the number coming to New Zealand. Allowing for the enormous size of Australia and the smallness of New Zealand, the disparity need not cause much jealousy, although it is possible that the size of a country is not the feature that attracts population. The figures that are given possibly afford no real criterion of the number of people niio have permanently settled in the commonwealth or the Dominion and represent tourists and travellers as well as permanent residents. The Canadian figures are remarkable, showing that li)(i,OUO people entered Canada from Britain during the past year. This makes the 9900 who came to New Zealand appear mean in comparison. Probably the reason why Canada attracts such an enormous number of British people is that it is so near to Britain. One may go to Canada in a week and for a few pounds, and, although Canada advertises her attractions hugely, she has an enormous advantage over both Australia and New Zealand in her nearness to the great centres of population. It is probable that ■' the British person who tired of the Homeland could be transported as cheaply to New Zealand as he can be to Canada, a greater proportion would come this way. There never can be, of course, a great shortening of the time taken in the voyage to Australia, and no doubt sentimental ties have some effect in inducing British immigrants to go to a country which can he so cheaply abandoned 'when homesickness comes. There arc some things in favor of New Zealand. Every inch of accessible country is habitable. It has no Arctic region like Canada, no dreadful workless winters, none of the sameness and dreariness of the great prairie lands, no absolutely waterless country as in Australia, and no need for any added advantages except population. The world does' not know New Zealand. An Australian politician has recently returned to Australia to tell Australians that he hadn't expected New Zealand to he such an important place as it is. If our next-door neighbors don't know anything about us, what immediate hope is there of inducing two or three millions of Britons to come out? Wc don't possess the great immigration organisation that Canada possesses,- and we haven't got a George Reid in London, but we do possess advantages that neither Australia nor Canada nor South Africa have—and we don't want to keep our mouths shut about them.

Tire DECLARATION OF LONDON. A widespread debate is being carried on in London and other parts of the Empire ancnt the Declaration of London. A few points bearing on this most important new international law may be noted. The Declaration of London was signed in February, 1009, by the delegates representing Great Britain and the other great Powers at a conference heid in London. The declaration, consisting of 711 articles, after being signed by the delegates, had still to be ratified by their respective Governments. Although this was to be done us early as possible ("shall be ratified as soon as possible"), it is still in abeyance. This ratification does not require the approval or sanction of Parliament, but simply that of his Majesty's Ministers, which may be given at any time. The chiel object of the conference of delegates was to draw up a code which should regulate naval operations in war time in connection with contraband, neutral vessels, privateers, etc., and of ''endeavoring to secure an under; standing between the Powers as to the general principles of law recognised by them to be binding upon their respective prize courts in the more important questions that might come before, the Interi national Court of Appeal." The conference met in December, 1908, and on February '2(5, 1909, signed and presented what is known as the "Declaration of • London." The sittings lasted barely twentv days, some of which were purely formal, and a most important and entirely new code of international law was thus in a, few days created, approved and signed. In the ''Declaration of London" Croat Britain appears to be greatly handicapped, as may be seen in the following. In article 24 of the Declaration there is a list of articles which "may without notice be treated as contraband, under the name of additional contraj band," and among these arc foodstuffs, forage, fuel and lubricants. In article 33, "conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for the. use of the armed forces or of a Government department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact lie used for the. purposes of the war in progress." This is admirably simple, but unfortunately its good intentions are nullified, for article 34 says: "The destination referred to in article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities, or to a contractor established in the enemy country who, as a matter of common' knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy, or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy. Xo such presumption, however, arises in the case of a. merchant vessel bound for one of these places if it Is sought to prove that she herself is contraband. In icases where the above presumptions do I not arise, the destination is presumed to lie innocent." The presumptions set up by this article may be rebutted. Again in article 35: "Conditional contraband is not liable to capture, except when found on board a vessel bound for territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or for the armed forces of the enemy., and when it is not to he discharged in an intervening neutral port." Great Britain, being isolated,'is handicapped in comparison with Germany as regards neutral ports. Germany might have supplies sent via Antwerp and an enemy could not interfere with the merchant vessel carrying these; but what foreign enemy

woull consider any of Great Britain's ports neutral? With regard to neutral vessels, article 4!) reverses article 48, which states emphatically that captured neutral vessels may not he sunk, but ''must be taken into such ports as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture." Article 49, stating: ''A neutral vessel which has been captured by a beligerent warship and which would be liable to condemnation may be destroyed if taking her into port would involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the success of the operations in which she was engaged at the time." It is presumed that the decision as to who will decide as to-.whether the operations would be imperilled or hampered or not would- be the officer commanding the commerce destroyer, who would naturally decide in the affirmative and claim the protection of the Declaration of London.