LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2379, 8 February 1915, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

LOCAL. NAVIES. Sir, —The opponents of tho local navy idoa havo boon wrongly charged with ignoring tho necessity of a policy or solf-rolianco and personal service, whereas tho importanco ol' training New Zealandors for the Navy is generally recognised. As for self-reliance, that point should not arise. Rather than this, should we not all feel proud of tho fact that our Dominion forms an integral part of one great nation that has for moro than a century been looked up to as the policeman of the seas and the protector of the weaker Powors. Tho development of Imperial unity is u vital thing for üb. Wo must think and act Imperially, and sink parochialism. New Zealandors who havo visited tho Old Country and thousands who havo not, cannot help but feel a partpropriotorship in tho noble traditions of our past national history; and surely tliiß is a spirit to be fostered. It is_ only by the very closest co-oper-ation in Empire dcfenco and the rigid concentration of sea strength that wo can hope to hold our proud —albeit nonaggressive—position as leader of the civilised world. In the words of the London "Daily Telegraph":—"For tho British Empire, disunited, there would be only ono prcdicablo end —its smaller units the spoil of enemies, its greater units conquered and humbled in their isolation, sunk to the position of minor or subject States. Such are the two tremendous possibilities —tho glorious hope and tho gigantic peril—that are at the heart of Imperialism to-day.' It is generally admitted that the gift of our battle-cruiser was well-timed, ■and that, although far away, sho is helping to protect the Pacific, nevertheless. As the London "Times" states : —"Our success in all parts of the world since tho war commenced has been won under cover of tho ships that watch day and night in the North Sea." In the same way, over one hundred years ago, tho blockading fleet of "Nelson's stormtossed ships, upon which the grand army never looked, was all that stood between it and the conquest of the world." In some quarters it has been contended that the gift ship from New Zealand did not actually increase our naval strength in the North Sea, but merely saved the pockets of British taxpayers; but this attitude calls for warm criticism. In common, with other outlying portions of the Empire, 6 have not we in New Zealand for years past failed to appreciate our national obligations and our utter dependance upon the safety of our trade routes? Havo we not been complacently content to allow the Mother Country—the "weary Titan"—to stagger under a huge naval outlay for the world-wide protection of the seas? Comparatively recently we were paying annually at the rate of about 2s. per head of population, as against somo 20s. per head contributed by British taxpayers fo- years past. ' "Why this huge difference, and why begrudge a little equalisation in the burden of sea-power? Surely the onus of protecting New Zealand's oversow commerce (now reaching a total of some fifty million sterling) should not bo allowed to fall almost entirely upon the Motherland. Supporters of a local fleet have said that the Australian battle-cruiser having been reserved for the Pacific, represents an actual addition to the Empire s gross naval strength, while they contend that the New Zealand does not From another point of viewj the 'boot is on the other foot." It is questionable,.'under existing circumstances,_ whether the Australia can bo of maximum value to the nation until, in accordance with the recognised rules of naval strategy, "she seeks out the enemy ui tho North Sea, and .takes her place in the actual fighting line?. The brand-now- Australian ships were, without doubt, of great service early m the war, before the German raiders had, with the aid of the Japs, been cleared out of the Pacific. However, should hostilities occur ten years or so later on, the Australian cruisers would by then be practically out of date,. despite tho enormous initial outlay. This is another argument against the luxury, tbe expensive luxury—of a local navy.—l am, etc., , CECIL w> PALMER. Wellington, February 6, 1915.