LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 754, 1 March 1910, Page 4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

PICTON AS A NAVAL BASE. Sir,—Adverting to the important question of fixing upon a site for n naval base, there are other matters of moment than those previously alluded to. Of course, one great object to bo kept in view is that its position should ho such as to be able to render assistance to tho more distant towns with comparative ease. Granting this, a central position becomes a first necessity. Auckland conld no. more bo classed as central than Dunedinj as each is really an extremo, not a centre. Wiien Auckland was originally fixed upon as a naval base, the circumstances were different from those obtaining to-dny. New Zealand was looked upon as part of the Australian station, nud in such case might be deemed to occupy in such connection a fairly central position. But after tho christening of the BaUarat, as first-born of the Commonwealth Navy—a clear indication that Australia had determined upon being self-supporting—those conditions changed absolutely; hence a new centre has to be found, and that centre beyond question is in the vicinity of Cook Strait. ■ Assuming that Wellington was threatened by cruisers of a hostile fleet, relief could be afforded from . Picton within three hours, from ■■ Auckland in ' twelve, that is, if the tide suited, if not, then probably the following day. But what about tlie southern cities, which have an equal right to be considered? Well, say, some time during the week. Is that good enough? Then there is another point. It is not desirable, nor is it usual, to endeavour to convert a commercial port into a naval base; matters so diametrically opposed to each other as peace and war should certainly be kept apart. The conditions necessary for the advancement of the one must necessarily .hamper the other. The experience of the world teaches this lesson. Germany is not using ■Hie port of Hamburg for .such purpose. England, with all its experience, has not made London, Liverpool of Glasgow, Southampton or CardiiF a naval base. •Certainly not. They chose Eosyth for most excellent reasons. Can we afford to ignore such? It must be remembered that this choice affecting tho well-being of New Zealand is not a. question of a day, a or even a century;-it, is for all time, when the country will bo populated with millions. Besides the objections previously urged against Auckland in my communication of February IS, there is another, r'tho importance of which should not be overlooked. That district'is particularly linble to subterranean disturbances. I have no doubt but that the upheaved .KaijMira rock is the direct result of such. It may be assumed that such .view is fanciful and pessimistic, but the inhabitants of the island of St. Thomns, of San. Francisco, of Messina, probably thought exactly the sanio thing the day previous to the awful disasters which came upon them. Are such experiences altogether unknown in New Zealand? Lives there a man who on June 9, 1686, could not have folt quite safe camping on the shores of Rotomahana Lake fora week? The night of the following day told a most disastrous tale. The country covered with volcanic mud for miles around, lives lost, the finest of Nature's handiwork—the Pink and White Terraces—cither destroyed or- hidden from mortal view. Is Auckland itself.beyond the danger zone? I. think not. it is eminently desirable. that : the important works of a naval base—which should bo of the most substantial nature—should be erected on a more certain foundation. ; J It. niust further be observed that volcanic action or .subterranean disturbance does-not tend to deepen channels already in existence, or to further submerge rocks the tops of which are too , high.' The tendency is almost/always in the oprtosito direction. The altered state of the Straits of Medina proves this. A rumour that Lord Kitchener is about to visit Picton -will, J hope, prove to bo correct as so many.points raised ..will come under his immediate _ notice, and tho remainder ciin,. otherwise easily-be proved.—l am, etc.', , ,-., ■ :.;,.'. .' '■

'■£"'■'■ •' ■', ■ AGRICOLA, February 23, 1910. ■■ ;.- .-