NAVAL DEFENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 29 April 1926, Page 3

NAVAL DEFENCE

NAVY LEAGUE VIEW. CHRISTCHURCH, April 28. The necessity for naval defence of the Empire was urged by Mr J. J. Dougall at last night’.-, meeting of tho Canterbury Branch of the Navy League, when he appealed for more help from the business men of the City, lie said that the people of the Empire were too much inclined to apathy on this matter.

“To-day, the British Navy is at as low an ebb ns it ever lias been,” said Mr Dougall, “and there is one Navy which, from a material standpoint at any rate, is superior to our Navy'. This, of course, results, in a large measure, from the enormous cost to Great Britain of the Great War. The effort Britain has made to throw off her debts is herculean, and I am sure that no other country in the world could have done it.” New Zealand, he said, was doing a small share in the maintenance of the Navy, hut she was not doing as much as she might. The Dominion was wealthier, per capita, than England, and yet she was not paying as much per head as was Great Britain. Lord Jellicoe, in a scheme for naval maintenance, had suggested £850,000 for New Zealand’s quota, whereas at the present it was merely £500.000. POPULAR MISAPPREHENSION. There was a good deal of misapprehension, said the speaker, on the necessity for naval defence, and a great deal of this arose from a misconception of the Washington Agreement, the League of Nations, and the Locarno Pact. The Washington Agreement merely reduced tlio number of battleships in a navy, and the other Powers had concentrated on light last cruisers and destroyers. Both the U.S.A. and Japan had built a number of these vessels faster than anything Britain had in her Navv. and the other day Japan had revealed the fact that she had secretly built four cruisers, of original design, which were very fast indeed. This was a significant fact.

The speaker <1 id not regard Japan as a potential enemy. She had little to gain, and a great deal to lose in a uar with Great Britain. Since 1918 the following numbers of vessels had been built by the leading Naval Powers:— Battleships: Great Britain 3. U.S.A. 5, Japan 2; cruisers: Great Britain 3. U.S.A. 10. Japan 17 ; destroyers. Great Britaain 29, U.S.A. 145. Japan 45; submarines: Great Britain 21, 17.5. A. 53. Japan 49. •• ]t is just as necessary to-day to he vigilant and watchful,” concluded Art- Dougall, “and there is an absolute necessity for naval defence. Tf we fail we pnss out of existence.