The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 20. 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3197, 20 May 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 20. 1873.

Amongst the numerous questions requiring consideration, brought under notice by the Superintendent’s Message, the defence of the ports of the Province is not the least important. The Colonies have been thus far very fortunate. They have grown into importance during a period in which, with the exception of Russia, the Imperial Government has not been at war with any nation possessing the means of successfully attacking them ; but in the nature of things that state of matters cannot continue for ever. Granted that the risk of war becomes less, in proportion to the growing interest of the world to maintain peace, occasions of discord are ever ready to come to the surface whenever a combination of events favors their development. Nor do we think the sense of what is due to mankind as a whole has yet found its true place in the code of international morality. There is undoubtedly a tendency to act somewhat more tenderly towards cities and citizens than of old. Works of art, public buildings, and private dwellings are not wantonly destroyed even by besieging armies, if the object can be otherwise gained. But the old leaven still remains unchanged in principle. Mb doubt, before war became subject to the regulation of certain laws, it was a mere system of mutual plunder,

entered upon under any pretext to justify or excuse the wrong done to the industrious. Turn it which way wo will, privateering is but a system of legalised piracy ; or even if a Government cruiser lay a sea-port under contribution, it is in no degree better—the only difference being that the Government provides the means of attack, and therefore goes shares in the spoil. We ipiite believe there are those—very likely the majority of men—who will pronounce this view too harsh : they will fall back upon the custom of nations in all time, and point to the advantage that has resulted to Great Britain through seizing Colonies and extending her possessions in all parts of the world. It is not our present object to contest that view. If Great Britain has profited, it is because a right use was ultimately made of that which was gained by conquest. What we wish to point out is that since no change of principle has taken place in the mode of conducting war since the time of Nimrod, we must accept matters as they are, and act accordingly. If war breaks out, our ports are really more exposed to attack than ever seaports were since the world was created. Science hast rendered vessels independent of winds and currents; and though the British navy is stronger and better armed than the combined navies of the world, just as crime is invariably committed when the police are at a distance, Colonial ports will be sacked or laid under contribution when no British vessel is within hail to prevent it. The electric telegraph may inform Her Majesty’s ship lying at Wellington or Lyttelton that Dunedin is attacked ; but almost before she could get her steam up all would be over : the ransom paid, and the cruiser or privateer clear of the port steering haply for Invercargill. Then comes the question, who is to pay for our defence 1 We have often raised this question before, and endeavored to convince our fellow provincialists that they will have to look to themselves. Xt seems to us there is great confusion of thought on this subject. Some make it a question of Colonialism v. Provincialism. They say that neither City nor Province has a right to be specially taxed for what is a Colonial work: that national defence is a Colonial work, and therefore that it is no part oi Provincial duty to see to means being provided. If this merely meant that there should be unity of design and purpose throughout the system of Colonial defence, there would be something in it. But that docs not appear to be the idea. Carried to its ultimatum, it should go outside the Colony up to the Imperial Government; to whom it might be truly said, t( The Colony is nob likely to he involved in. risk of attack, excepting through war in which it has only the remotest interest, and therefore the means of defence should be provided by the Mother Country.” This has been said by Victoria, New South Wales, and the Government of New Zealand, and to some extent responded to. But the Imperial Government holds that the Colonies themselves are largely interested in self-defence : that the Mother Country has only a share in the commerce of its Colonies, while their inhabitants have property and families to defend, and thus have really the most important stake at risk; and since this is the case, they must pay the heaviest share in the cost of insurance against the Queen’s enemies. If, therefore, nolens nolens , we are to aid in our own defence, the more resolutely we set about the matter the better. To doom ourselves to inaction because the Colonial Government should do the work, is a mistake. Even assuming the cost to be, in the first instance, paid out of the General revenue, it would be charged against the Province ; for it cannot be imagined that other Provinces would be better content to pay for the defence of Port Chalmers or Dunedin, than for making their roads or improving their streets. Since then, the cost will inevitably have to be borne by the Province, and mostassuredly and necessarily by those chiefly interested, there is not only no reason for delay, but every inducement to decided and prompt action. Even a pirate, if there is such an institution, could at present rob the Port, and get away with little risk of immediate punishment. Organisation, and very inexpensive means only, are required on our part. If they are adopted, the fact that we are prepared with means of defence against any contingency, will be equal to an assurance they will not be called into active service; but let it be known we are quarrelling who shall defend our own property, and we invite attack. Too late the truth may be forced upon us that quarrels lead to damage that a little prudence would have prevented.