NAVAL DEFENCE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1816, 31 July 1913, Page 9

NAVAL DEFENCE.

(By Naval.) Your morning contemporary .very wisely advocates the earliest possiblo date for proper protection for our coasts, otc., but, ivhen replying to my letter ,of July 1 in its .sub-leader of .July 2, it omits part of the chief objections to Sir Joseph Wards proposed naval scheme. The article mentions in the scheme a proposed loan of >£50,000,000 for the construction of 20 Dreadnoughts, to be paid for and replaced in 15 years. This would require, at 0 per cent, (including sinking fund), ,£3,000,000 ft year. Tho. balance would :provido'the,-ciMiisors,-torpedo-boatsy and submarines accessary for the prdpef .balance of the'fleet, and also the docks and naval-stations. Thus the fleet represents a]iout >6100,000,000 (including sinking fund), and this sunt would suffice to pro-- . vide a fleet strong enough to successfully combat any probable enemy in thß South Pacific'for a few years to come. • The article, while trying to support Sir J. Ward's scheme, in preference to my scheme of liaval coast defence, actually condemns tho former by omitting the chief item, i.e., upkeep, and unwittingly gives the, strongest argument in favour of coastal defence. It will require tit least a hundred million's (.£3,000,000 annually) for Sir J. Ward's fleet, clocks, naval stations, and sinking fund, and wo should have, as we are told, a fino fleet, etc., costing 000,000 annually, but we have not been told that the cost-of upkeep of eacli Dreadnought for wages, food,. stores, coal, ammunition, etc., is anything between ,£150,000 and annually, and that the upkeep of the other portion of his ■ naval programme is proportionately heavy, so that if wo set the upkeep of the 20 Dreadnoughts at .£3,500,000 annually, ' and that of the cruisers, torpedo-boats, submarines, liaval stations, and dockyards at .£3,000,000, we have the additional annual expenditure of .£0,500,000. Ihis together with tho interest, .£3,000,000 each year (on tho building and sinking capital fund) makes an annual sum of i£9,SOU,OUU, Divide this proportionately amongst a population of 13 millions in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and New Zealand is ' left with a sum ot about £700,000 to contribute as her share. Besides this wo must keep 'in mind that New Zealand 9 debt at the present timo is about one hundred million pounds!!! Tho Australian and Canadian Governments liavo thrown out Q< very similar scheme, the two principal reasons being that tho debt on the proposed loan would he too great a burden on the taxpayer and tho upkeep, of tho fleet too heavy. Both these countries, liavo now practically adopted coastal 1 defence with 'fast cruisers in preference to Sir Joseph Ward's scheme. - The sub-leader further deprecates mr Joseph Ward's scheme in mentioning the time it would toko to complete, the proposed fleet, quoting tho words in article "assuming that Parliament agrees in 1915 it would require another, year to get things into shape for tho schcmo.to get going and then fivo years would be required for its completion." In my letter of June 1, I did not mention any time, but thero would be no difficulty in getting <v guarantee (were such required) that our coastal naval vessels would bo out here in less than three years from date of signing contracts. It is therefore self-evident that in the event of ccastal naval defence being adopted wo shall be ready to give an enemy a warm reception in three years, whereas under Sir Joseph Ward's scheme wo shall bo at tho aiercy of an enemy.for 3or 10 years.. The article referred to mentions tho balance of Sir Jo.-eph Ward's fleet, torpedo boats and submarines. What >s it supposed that these vessels o.ro for? Why, chiefly for harbour defence and the protection of tho fleets' boats, so that these vessels which I have been advocating for our immediate coast protection must in any ease be provided under Sir Joseph Ward's own scheme, but in my scheme they serve as our protection for many years before Sir Joseph Ward's scheme (which at the present time is an impossible one) could be. established and his fleet be available. This being so. why in all common sense has New Zealand been left without adequate protection during Sir Joseph Ward's term of office, and. again, why, under his proposed-scheme, is New Zealand still to be left a prey to any enemy for at least eight or ten years to come?