The Press. THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1914. "LiberaUsm-s" Fight Against Facts.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14985, 4 June 1914, Page 8

The Press. THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1914. "LiberaUsm-s" Fight Against Facts.

We really do not Know which is the toost serious defect in our "Liberal" friend} in their hopeless struggle against facts—their appallingly defective me- ■ mories or their stupidity in supposing that suppression and evasion and denial can aid them. No number of exposures can teach them wisdom. They aro faring as badly as usual over the naval qqestion, which they rashly raised into a party issue m the bono that they might distract the public's attention from the _trikc issue. They are now hopelessly cornered. First of all ther clamoured that the Government proposed a "local navy-'' or "a toy navy," but the plain facts have made it as impossible for them to persuade thepublic to believe ?hat as to persuad. the publi. to believe that tho Government proposes to establish a standing army. Then Sir Joseph Ward—and the Wittys and Rnssella took un the cry— clamoured about the "enormous cost of th. scheme. Mr Fisher remindtd (hem that Sir Joseph Ward himself in 1909 advocated a scheme under which New Zealand would pay ■£500,000 a year for naval defence over and above . tho cost of land defence. So that card was hastily withdrawn. At any rate, they then said, the Government was proposing to provide a Bristol cruiser if the Admiralty did not do somethingand the Government was therefor j idiotic. -Tho idea, they, said, of having ships in our waters, where they could not reach, tbo centre of action in th-i event of war! So on Tuesday wo reminded them that this Krossly unstratcgical folly, as they represented it to be, was) proposed in 1909 by Sir J. G. Ward, who arranged with the Admiralty for the stationing here of Bristol cruisere, destroyers, and submarines. This, last reminder of the facts whic__ Sir "J. G.Ward and his friends so con_i_.tently forget has, a* we an- ;.-. ticipated. made them realiso tho S__-_ja!-. ___.

damaging absurdity of their case.. But there was one move left, and it was made yesterday. One of his apologists came to the rescue of poor Sir Joseph by saying that at that timo people did not- know the principle of concentration! But, fooling that t* was too thin, Sir Joseph's defender added another excuse —a delight.'il one-: — .Sir Jowph Ward and his colteagUM "'<* not a'.teu.pt to bind the Admiralty in any way in l'J&'J or in subsequent years, iind if they had remained in <ffi>_ they undoubtedly w-ou.d have accepted witboat demur the ->_- sur.'-ncc o: the flout, authorities that it wouid r>. vas.c'ui .Tid ui.n-ccwa.ry to station useful ships in this corner ii tha Mho™ n,-> esfliay is within reach and no danger threatens. He would not, it is added, ''dragoon the Admiralty.'' Now. tho plain man will reject this pica as ono better fitted for tho nt.rw;ry than for a ccrio-S public. But there is actual evidence, as to what Sir J. G. Ward "would undoubtedly" havo done, and evidence, too. upon the point of "'dragooning.' 1 Our" friends have forgotten the dialogue in tbe House on October 25th of last. year. Sir Joseph Ward asked the Prime Minister some questions: — I want to know ■nhal re a .sons thero are on record, <riveE by the British Government, for not carrying out the honourable Agreement ent.red into -in IiJOT with mo, on bakal! of the Kcv.- Zealand Government, to send to tbeac water, two liritiois. three destroyers, and two submarine* l . "VThv hnve the British ..Government departed from thst arrangement' ar.d vh.ri did they advisb the New Y-c.ilfcEd Government that they had done 9. and was it dona without the cc_f_nt of tbe New Zealand Government.' ft is clettr'v » vtiry important point, and we should have the fullest information IWore we go into the whole matter. As it Gtand3 now, it -tigg-nt. a brea_h of faith on tho part of the British Government to the Government of one of its own "elf-governing Dominions. I do cot like to think this can be ?o.

We need not emphasiso the laughable light in which theso observations place the "Wardists who are abusing tho Government for dariug to trouble the Admiralty or question its virtue and wisdom. "We would only call attention to the menacing tone of Sir Joseph's remarks. If they did not amount to " dragooning" the Admiralty we do not know what dragooning means. However. Mr Massey read the Admiralty's explanation of its refusal to carry out the agreement, and fhe man who, we aro told, '-did not attempt to bind the '"'Admiralty,'' and who would havo accepted the Admiralty's assurances " without demur," became frankly angry and condemnatory of the peopld at Homo. The Admiralty's message, ho said, "meant on tho face of it" that

tho Government was going to rcfuso ships, and, referring to tho interim proposal to leavo tho "Psycho" and " Pyramus" hero, Sir Joseph said: "1 "can only hopo that tho Prime Minis- " ter has not informed the Trr.rw»-.r>! " Government that New Zealand is " going to regard those two substitutes " for naval ships as satisfactory, bo- " cauEo it is not; they _).ro mere apolo- " gies." Mr Massey said ho was delighted to hear tho Leader of the Opposition say that, bocauso he quit© agreed with him. And in tho facb of all this, the Opposition apologists have tho hardihood to say that even if he did arrange in 1909 that up-to-date warships should be feopt in our waters, ho would not have said a word iT ho were subsequently told that that would .bo "wasteful and un"nccessary." Could anything ho moro ludicrous than this losing fight of tho "Liberals" against facts? Their memories gono, their political principles gone, and nothing left to them savo abuse, misrepresentation anci such foolish and hopeless -wriggles as we have hero exposed, they cut as istrauge and as sorry a'figure' as*has ever been cut by any political party anywhere.