The Press. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28: 1914. A CHALLENGE REPEATED.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14886, 28 January 1914, Page 8

The Press. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28 : 1914. A CHALLENGE REPEATED.

We are very sorry to see that, not finding anything in tho domestic policy of the Government to criticise, a section of tho Opposition are strenuously trying to drag tho naval question into party politics. It is with especial regret that we find a paper of the standing of the Dnnedin ''Star" not only lending itself to this petty and antiImperial manoeuvre, but actually misrepresenting the facts for the purpose of making out a case against Colonel Allen and the Government. In an article in its issue of tho 24th inst. wo find the following amazing assertion: — "Sir Joseph Ward lias repeatedly asked: Why was tiie Naval Agreement of 1!)OD broken, under which two Bristol cruisers, three destroyers, and two submarines \vr>ro to como out and remain in Now Zealand waters? The answer is—at least we think so—becauso when he was in England tho Hon. Jas. Allen talker! of -i local navy, and the Admiralty. Hoard quietly acquiesced in a that was much more acceptable to them on the score of economy." If the writer of this article had taken tho least trouble to find out the facts of the case ho would have known, as Sir Joseph Ward knows, that the British Government had come to the conclusion, before tho Massey Government tame into office, that it was impossible, consistently with a due regard for tho interests of the Empire, to carry out the agreement which Sir .Joseph Ward extracted from them in 1909. Up to the time Sir Joseph Ward left office in tho beginning of 1912, nothing was done in the direction of carrying out that agreement, and we havo not heard of any remonstrances or even enquiries having been made by Sir Joseph Ward during that period. When the Mackenzie Government came into office it was explained to them that there had been a change in tho position, and they consented to tho battle-cruiser, which was to have been sent to tho China station, being stationed wherever the Admiralty thought desirable. This fact —which has more than once been stated publicly in Xew Zealand—is repeated in set terms by Mr Myers, Minister for Defence in the Mackenzie Government, in the interview which wo print in another column. When tho Massey Government succeeded the 3lackenzie Ministry, they confirmed this arrangement, and informed the Admiralty that the battle-cruiser was unreservedly placed at their disposal. With tho withdrawal of the condition as to tho battlo-cruiser, thx> whole agreement naturally fell to the ground. It would have' been the height of folly to send out the rest of the fleet unit—the two Brfstols, the three destroyers, and the two submarines to a place where there was no use for them, especially when the exigencies of naval strategy urgently required their presence elsewhere. To assert or suggest, in the face of these plain facts, that Colonel Allen, on his visit to England encouraged, if he did not actually procure the Admiralty to break the agreement of 1909 is such a ffagrant perversion of the truth that we are amazed to find it in any paper outside tho official organs of tho Party of Misrepresentation. The writer in the Dunedin "Star," like the writers in the official Opposition papers which have been trying to make party capital out of the naval question, professes to be an ardent advocate of the fleet-concentration policy. But we observe that he discreetly refrains from responding to the challenge which we have more than once issued to Sir Joseph Ward and his friends in the course of this discussion. They strongly object to Colonel Allen's policy of stationing a training ship in these waters to train at our own cost New Zealand officers and men for the Navy, and possibly, at some future date, building and paying for a cnliser which is to bo stationed [here, in time of peace, but is to bo placeu unreservedly at the disposal of tho Admiralty in any emergency. They say such a policy is opposed to the true principles of naval strategy, and calculated to weaken the British Navy instead, of strengthening it. How. then, can they defend Sir Joseph Ward's agreement o~ 19Q9, under which tile Mother Country would have been compelled to detach from the vital quarter a battle-cruiser, two Bristols, three i destroyers and two submarines, and to J station them in raters where, accord- | ing to the principles of naval strategy, ! they were not required. Moreover, the i Bristols, the destroyers, and tho submarines were to be built, and the entire unit to be maintained, at the cost iof tho Mother Country with the help of a very trifling subsidy from New. Zealand. Once again wo ask Sir Joseph Ward's apologists to explain how it is that his agreement maintains the principle of fleot-eoncentration. and involves no , drain upon the Mother i Country, whereas Colonel Allen's modest effort to provide a few New Zealand officers and seamen for the Navy is in flagrant opposition to all t"he great naval teachings - and traditions.