EFENCELESS NEW ZEALAND.

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2354, 9 January 1915, Page 11

EFENCELESS NEW ZEALAND.

, Sir,—Now that' New Zealand has i nothing more to fear from a German , attack, the defenceless position in which s she Btands must be boldly faced.' One , clergyman, when preaching lately, ex- ? pressed, in the pulpit, his regret that y German cruisers had. not thrown a few l ehells into our seaport cities if only to b remove the "apathy of New Zealanders t in matters of defence. Every man in - this country may thank God from his 1 heart that we have net been entirely 3 cut off from the resti of the world, our j shipping destroyed, our seaport - cities - shelled and devastated E Although millions of money have been s paid away,•it is undoubted by those 1 who know, that for a quarter of a cen--3 tury prior to the year 1907 New Zealand J was in a better position of defence as regards an enemy' 6 attack than she has since been. From the time of the revival of Japan's Navy, after the Rus-sian-Japanese War, thi6 country has had no protection of any value when matched against an attack of up-to-date snips. The people have trusted entirely , to their Governments to take care of t their country, but the necessary pro--1 tection of our ports and coasts has been ' neglected, large annual payments have 1 been sent abroad, and an endeavour ' made to fasten all responsibility for ; Now Zealand's 6afoty on to the Mother ; Country. j Those who were hero and remember t the Russian scare at the time of the i Tarawera eruption, may easily gauge I the state this country would arrive at : in the event of a hostile' fleet's attack. l'et, although the colony has obtained the best expert advice on some of the most important matters, this advice has ; been neglected, and instead the Min- [ ister or some local authority has run . a policy which, for practical defence, ; is worthless. An article by an artillery officer appears in one of tho papers recently,, i which deals with the security of New Zealand's chief seaport city. Such articles are calculated only to impress the ignorant on matters of defence, and they are oertainly a public menace when creating a false security. The writer might be asked to rewrite those views based upon an enemy's attack with three or four Dreadnoughts or up-to-date cruisers arriving behind the i shelter of the big islands of Mototapu. ■ The result of tho American naval ships' bombardment of Morro Castle during the Spanish-American War, is interesting and instructive. Not only were the land guns quickly lilenced, but a great t part of the hill itsolf brought down by the naval shell. The "Herald" newspaper, in an ap- , propriato article headed "The Naval Question," deals with the failure of Sir Joseph Ward's naval 6chome. The im--1 possibility of this scheme has already been fully set forth by "Naval." Tlio "Herald" article calls Sir Joseph Ward's handling of the coastal defence subject "word twisting." Truly some politicians have the unfortunate knack

of blinding their readers, purposely or not. Many do not understand the term "naval ooast defence." It is generally understood to be a defenoe made by vessels which are particularly serviceable for coastal work, and are not built for remaining any length of time at eoa. They aro generally a type of venomous small vessels carrying only the means of travelling a very limited distance from these bases, such as submarines, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarine mines, eto., boom defenoes, etc., are also used in this defence. These, together with the aesistanoe of land guns, largely make the British harbour and coast defence. None of these units are costly, although presenting groat* protection. Moreover, whatever «wval defence is Ultimately undertaken,' our chief ports will require similar vessels to seoure them and provide protection for our shipping and, basis for the warships to get supplies in and obtain docking and repairs when necessary, If this is so, and I challenge any authority on naval matters to disprove it, then what is tie cause of the Gov eminent's delay, in starting this essential defenoe? If a naval fleet to protect these colonies oould be inaugurated, it must certainly be a fleet of warships which overmatch Japan's fleet. It must be larger in number, in pace, And in armaments. Should the fleet not , have this overwhelming preponderance, then it only leads us into a false state of security. Terrible disaster was near overtaking us lately, and as a naval fleet to protect these colonios is utterly impossible for years to come, not a day's delay should be allowed in undertaking the safeguarding of our shipping bases and coasts, and giving our coasts what protection is possible with naval coast defence. —I am. etc., NAVAL.