PASSING NOTES.

Digger (Invercargill RSA), Issue 20, 30 July 1920, Page 3

PASSING NOTES.

(By "Jacques.")

The "Auckland Weekly News" says that "the proposal to raise a loan of £70,000 to erect a, hall as a war memorial was rejected by the South Invercargill ratepayers." £70,000! It has a ring of opulence about it that must be very gratifying to our little next door neighbour. The "Otago Daily Times" (July 19), complaining of the extortionate poundag® of the Postal Department on money orders to the U.S.A., says that it "had increased its charges to 8d on every 20/- up to the first 20/-" The information is, somehow, incomplete. It does not tell us what the charge is on every 20/- below the first 20/And we ought to know it. It looks as though Poland is sorry that she spoke. At any rate she is squealing to the Allies. to extricate her from the mess she has got herself into. It is a pity that political and other considerations will not permit us to leave her to the punishment she so richly deserves. The chief, if not the sole, motive for her insolent aggression against her big neighbour (so far as we can gather) was the desire for territorial expansion afc Russia's expenses. To this end she took action that might easily have involved all Europe in another such conflagration as we have Just emerged from. And it looked as though there were certain forces at wTork in Allied countries to encourage her predatory aims, regardless of consequences. Profits, to many, are a more important consideration thau human lives. Had it not been for possible. advantages to some in England and elsewhere, Poland would never have been allowed to signalise her re-establish-ment as a political entity in such a way a£ to again jeopardise that peace for which the world has already made such terrible sacrifices. Poland deserves a hiding — and so do some of our own people who undoubtedly encouraged her in her filibustering adventure. One of the many reasons for Harry Holland's unpopularity lies in his obstinate refusal to ignore unpleasant facts, and his embarrassing propensity for speaking the truth— which, however loudly we may sing its praises, is, perhaps, the least palatable thing in this sad old world of ours. His latest imprudence was during the discussion on the denationalisation of aliens, when he incautiously referred to the Teutonic lineage of our ancient Royal visitor. There was a sudden gasp of horror throughout the Chamber, followed by hysterical cries of "Shame" from quite a number of super-loyalists. Some rose, and severely reprobated our political Ishmael's want of decency, and then sat down again, glowing with the consciousness that they had discharged their duty to King and country, and vindicated the loyalty of the Dominion. But, even granting that Holland's remark was tactless and uncalled for, where was the occasion for so much fuss ? The fact of the Prince's Teutonic descent is unquestionable, and, in my humble opinion, he is none the worse for that. However, much we may agree to ignore it, we cannot alter it. The Prince's would-be champions were the kind of friends we pray God to save us from, since their very defence suggested something shameful in that Teutonic fluid that meanders through his veins, and on one occasion, at least, gushed from the Royal nose in a school scrimmage — unless the anecdotist lies. It matters little what a man's blood is, so that he is a decent fellow — and, from all accounts the Prince is all that. The horror of our Parliamentary "loyalists" really evidences the same truckling, grovelsome spirit as that which, some years ago, caused a London magis-

trate to send a- "freeborn British subject" to gaol for six weeks for daring to say that the late King Edward — then prince of Wales — came into this world without a shirt to his back.