MR JAMES ALLEN INTERVIEWED.

Otago Witness, Issue 2895, 8 September 1909, Page 18

MR JAMES ALLEN INTERVIEWED.

REPLY TO MR FOWLDS. "Mr Fowlds is quite unfair in hi=, criticism of Mr Mas6ey," remarked Mr J. Allen, M.P. (Bruce), to a representatn e of the Daily Times yesterday. "He has put into Mr Massey's mouth words that Mr Maseey never uttered What Mr Massey 6aid was , that the information to hand was &o fra»g- ! mentary that no one could come to a definite conclusion ; but that, so far as he { could see, there were some things to object to. For instance, he said there was no mention of universal training. Mr Massey has not said, as Mr FowLds wishes to make us believe, that the conference has done nothing with universal training. We do not know yet. Neither do we know anything of a. scheme of harbour defence. Mr FowlJe makes Mr Massey suggest that in this matter the confeience ha- don-o nothing. , Probably the conference hat> done something, but we are waiting to know whether it has or not. ! "Mr Massev lias sanl if the people had known the offer of a Dreadnought was to take the form of an Indomitable, which is very much the same thing, for the China 6tation, New Zealand, having no -direct interest in it, there m.ght have bo-sn some differenc? of opinion on th-2 proposal, and that is quit-e an open question. Th^n it is altogether 100 coiuiral that Mr Fowld» should s-uggest that, as Mr M.-.sspy's -views appear in the paper clos-s to tho cable'l (rc-rmsn \i-ews, thn.--efoie Mr Ma.= -?y is de\ eloping German -sympathies. Mr FowkU really noetU to cuhtvate a sense of humour; ho b; , too much single t-.i\ too little humour." i '" A-- far as patuoiism i-> o ncrncd, lam content to accept Mr Ma=-a'b pa.rrict..-m a^ be ng quite as real ;)<:; )<: and perhnp3 more ro.il than — that of hi- tiitio Iki ow fioin pev^ouai conversations wit'i Mi Ha-?fv how real his patiioti-m i.=. There is no -<fia.)n ! or vci.cer about it, and if he has expi'essed

: doubts about certain actions, I firmly bei lifive that the position he takes up is prompted solely by his loyalty and has patriotism." Mr Allen also expressed the belief that the conference had dealt with a scheme for I uniform training for land defence, as well as for sea defence. If not, the conference had failed in one of its objects ! The appalling power of destruction pos1 eessed by the Dreadnoughts may to some extent be grasped when one remembers that their 12in guns, of whioh each vessel carries 10, will throw an 8201b shell about 15 miles. Tho charge of ammunition for » j 12in gun is 2541b, and each gun will fire 10 ! aimed rounds per minute. Thus a Dread- ' nought firing all her guns can discharge ; over 36 tons of metal per minute at an enemy, and to do this would use up over 11 , tons of ammunition What is more, the guns can be so trained that nearly the whole of this tremendous attack can be delivered ton one spot. It is an undoubted fact that ; one or two broadsides from a Dreadnought j would sink any other ship afloat. I It is the fashion to call all armoured ships • of the all-big-gun type built since 1906 ■ Dreadnoughts, and this description is apI plied to the trio of powerful armoured j cruisers, or, rather, cruiser-battleships, the Indomitable, Inflexible, a-nd Invincible, which will lie midway of the principal line. AotuaJly, these a.ro more wonderful vessels than even the Dreadnought herself. I The proud position ■. of being the fastest ; big warship in the world is held by the Inj vincible, which recently proved herself capi able of doing an average of about 27 sea ! miles por hour. The Invincible, too, will > always be remembered as being the first ! ship built for the British Navy in which everything, except the propelling engines, is worked by electricity. For working big gansj hydfan/ic power is generally useo, and i answers very satisfactorily, as t|>e wonder- • ful gunnery achievements of the fleet prove ; j but with the Invincible came the era of | electricity. So well has this answered in | her that it is to be adopted in all future ships- : These Dreadnought cruisers, as they are sometimes called, carry eight I2in guns, against the Dreadnought's 10, but they are ' practically as heavy as the Dreadnought, | displacing 17,250 tons against 17,900, and I their turbines are neaxly twice as powerful ; I nor is there any great difference iii cost. Th© cruiser costs £1,750,000, and the battleship only about* £100,000 more. One other point of comparison : the Dreadnought is 520 ft long, the Dreadnought cruisers— that , is, the three Indomi tables — are each 560 ft long. They may easily be distinguished by their tripod masts and genera.ll/ uncruiserlike appearance.