THE COST OF THE GERMAN NAVY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1644, 10 January 1913, Page 3

THE COST OF THE GERMAN NAVY.

i—. —. TRAPS FOR ENGLIBH READERS, THE REAL AMOUNT OF THE . INCREASE. ' i A correspondent of the "Manchester iGuardian" writing from Berlin, on .November 25, states:— Some confusioii has already arisen in England over the ' German Naval -Estimates for 1913, Through what was apparently a telegraphic mistake on the part of jßcuter's Agency, the increase in naval expenditure was at first given as X 1,750,000. U'n actual fact the increase at the most is ,£310,000., The mistake was an'unfortunate one, os. the executive of the Navy League issued a manifesto based on these absurdly exaggerated figures. The changes in expenditure between the current year and 11)13 are aa follow:— Ordinary recurring naval expenditure, >69,860,000, an'increase of <£805,000 on the expenditure of 1912., Non-recurring i11,437,(100, an increase of X 1,076,000 on the expenditure of 1912. Extraordinary from loan. J82,558,000, a decrease of X 1,571,000 on the expenditure of 1912. Total, ' .£23,855,000. Total increase, .£310,000. Under recurring expenditure are reckoned the upkeep of ships, payment of crqws, and so forth." All new building comes'under the secoid heading. It has always been the practice to-cover a certain part of this latter expenditure by loan under the namo of extraordinary expenditure. An attempt is being made to abolish this practice, and, as-Will be seen from, the table, the loan expenditure for the coming year has been very considerably reduced. Of course, if is ignored, an increase in expenditure! of li million pounds can be shown, but the extraordinary expenditure is an integral -part.of the Budget as. a whole, and it would be entirely unjustifiable to separate it in this way. . > Another trap for English readers lies concealed': in the Budget figures. ,If they, compare the total expenditure given above with the expenditure , for 1912 as given in most naval handbooks or statistical tables, they may. find that the difference between the two years appears to be considerably more thin X310,0()0. This is due to a peculiarity of the German naval accounts. The colony of Kiao-chow, on the coast of China, has not yet been able to support the cost of its own administration. Consequently the Imperial -Government .is obliged to oome to its aid every year -with agrant. ■ For •' some reason, perhaps because the colony is of ; little use ,a 9 a naval base, the naval Budget is- burdened with the cost Of this Kiao-chow grant/ Apart from this purely arbitrary arrangement, the grant has nothing whatever •to do with, the navy. In fact, as it amount from year to, year, its inclusion only serves to prevent an absolutely accurate' comparison of naval .expenditure, and in consequence it is always omitted exoept in the yearly statement of the Budget, \ If, following this rule, we subtract the sum to be set, aside for Kiaochow in 1913 (.£475,000), We find_ that the' estimated expenditure amounts in reality to ,J323,380,001). Moreover, as the sum to be set aside for Kiao-chow ; .in 1913 is .larger than that granted during the current year (.£437,000), the difference betwecn the'expenditure' on the navy proper this year and under. the Estimates ■f0r.1913 is not -.£310,000, but less—that. ia. to say .£273,000-. ,■ ' - The Liberal -press, especially the more 'advanced.sections, is by no means satis-, :fied bjvthe Estimates . as now i presented. The non-recurring ; expenses to be\ incurred uiidertho new. army and navy bills which were got through this spring, under the influence of the ill-feeling created by. the Morocco crisis, are ,to bo met not from taxation,-but from thesurplus which,remains over from the year; 1911. There might be some excuse for, Vuch a financial trick-if-these non-recur-ring expenses, which' fitf 1918 will amount to X 1,050,000, were likely to disappear "in future years. But this will not hap;, pen. ■ On the■:tentrary'' ; thore. is,'every, probaljility .that, they will increase w;thout there being any convenient surplus in the future on which to fall back., It is a strange coincidence that the amount required this next year for., non-recurring army and navy increases is almost exactly .the same as the income expected to bo derived from the much-discussed succession duties. This fatal, inheritance tax caused the fall of both Prince Bulow and Herr, Wermuth, the late Finance Minister, who resigned this spring. The opposition of' Conservatives and .Clericals to any improvement in the finances of the Empire which would touch their own pockets was;much too strong,<"-.' But it threatened to become & serious matter for Germany to be left in this way with. no avenue of new taxation- open, and to be forced to, rely for its increased expenditure on defence .on. occasional surpluses or on a policy of loans..'-' r' ii a