THE~KAISER’S LETTER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2135, 9 March 1908, Page 3

THE~KAISER’ S LETTER.

•o.TVTffIL IMPRESSIONS AND PAI lively COMMENT. press oimnions. n n itod Press Association— Copyright V (Received -March 8. 4.40 p.m.) 1 BERLIN. March 8. Tho Kaiser’s letter caused a psniful impression in Germany ; * uncomfortable fooling in Vienna ; and lively comments in Prance and America. The Kaiser, in the course ot conversation, frequently resented comments in tho British newspapers, eingloing out the German navy and not the American or French. , The Daily Telegraph says:— H ' letter declared that- the German Hoe is one-fifth of the size of that ot Untain, and therefore there is no ground for bitterness. The Times considers that it may construe. Mr. Asnuit-h’s mwksas a repudiation, on oeliaU ot t-ne Cab inot, of any official responsibility in holds that there can bo no relation between a foreign sovereign and British Ministers, who are servants of the King, and responsible to the Cabinet. The (Spectator says :—‘‘Assuming tho letter was an attempt to influence our naval policy, Lord Tweedmouth s proper course was to tell the Kaiser politely that the matter was not one with which ho could deal, and to suggest the Foreign Office ns the vehicle for the conveyance of tho Kaiser s pacific assurances.” ... Tlie Chronicle severely cnticises Lord Tweedmouth for not communicating the letter or his reply to the Cabinet, but proceeding to talk about the matter. The Kaiser was indiscreet in writing to the Minister on ■topics closely relating to tho Admiralty. Friendly discussion between the two Governments relating to armaments has repeatedly been desired by the British Government, but no favorable response came from Berlin. Private correspondence between the Kaiser and. Lord Tweedmouth is quite another and less desirable thing, but if tho incident prepares the way for official communication towards the arrest of the now- naval construction, both nations will have equal reason to rejoice. The Daily Mail says:—“Tho letter arose from Lord Ester’s letter to tho founders of the Imperial Maritime at The Hague, dated January 26th, and published February 6th, ' declaring that there was not a man in Germany, from the Kaiser downwards, who would not' welcome Admiral Fisher’s downfall, and adds tbai.itbo.Kaij. ser trenchantly com!uent'odGthqreou,j scarifying Lord Ester. j. ■ . v ; QUESTIONS IN rARLIAMI'NI^. (Received March S, 4.30 p.m.) > LONDON. March 7. Replying to questions in the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith stated that on February 2S Lord Tweedmouth rea purely pri--1 vate and personal letter, conceived in an entirely friendly spirit, and tho answer to that letter was equally private and informal. Neither one fetter or the other was known to or communicated to tho Cabinet. Mr. Asquith said that he might add, m view of some suggestions being made, that before the Kaiser’s letter was received by Lord Tweedmouth, the Cabinet had come to a final decision regarding the naval estimates for the year. The statement was received with cheers. GERMANY’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT. “NO INTENTION TO INTERFERE.” (Received March 8, 4.30 p.m.) . BERLIN, March 7. The Foreign Office in Berlin has -authorised Reuter’s correspondent to make the following official statement: —“lt is untrue that the .Kaiser attempted to interfere with the British navy elans, -and his letter merely corrected certain erroneous views prevalant in England regarding the Herman, fleet. The- Emperor is no tyro on naval matters, and this step he had -a perfect right to take as a naval expert, and as such he is recognised in England. Just as the Emperor would reject any foreign attempt .-to decide the proportions of Germany’s fleet, so he would repudiate any idea of interfering with the affairs of the -British navy.”