THE KAISER’S LETTER.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9090, 9 March 1908, Page 5

THE KAISER’S LETTER.

MR ASQUITH EXPLAINS. MUCH ADO AioUT NOTHING. Per Press- Association. —Copyright. Received March 8,‘10.46 p.m. London, March 7. Replying to questions in the House of Commons, Mr Asquith stated that on February 28th Lord Tweedmouth received from the Kaiser a purely private and personal letter conceived in an entirely friendly spirit. The answer to that letter was equally private and informal. Neither one letter or the other was known by or communicated to the Cabinet. Mr Asquith said he might add, in view |of some suggestions which were 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. Mr Asquith’s statement was received with cheers. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT. The Daily Telegraph says £the letter declared the German fleet was one-fifth the size of that of Great Britain, and that therefore there . was no bitterness. The Times considers the country may construe Mr Asquith’s remarks as a repudiation, on behalf of the Cabinet, of official responsibility in the matter. The Post holds that there can be no relation between a foreign Sovereign and a British Minister, who is the servant of the King, and responsible to the Cabinet. The Spectator says: “Assuming the letter was an attempt to influence the naval policy, Lord Tweedmouth’s proper course was to tell the Kaiser politely that the matter -was- not one with which he < could deal, and suggest the Foreign Office as a vehicle for thejconveyance of the Kaiser’s pacific assurances. ” The Chronicle severely criticised 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 a Minister on topics closely relating to the Admiralty. “Friendly |discussion between the two Governments relating to armaments has repeatedly . been desired by the British Government, but no favourable response has come from Berilu. Private correspondence between the Kaiser aud Lord Tweedmouth is quite another and less desirable thing. If the incident prepares the way for an official communication towards the arrest of the new naval construction, both nations have equal reason to rejoice. ” The Daily Mail says the letter arose from Lord Esher’s letter to the founders of the Imperial Maritime League, dated January 27th, and published on February 6th, declaring that there was not a man in Germany, from the Kaiser downwards, who would not welcome Admiral Fisher’s downfall. It adds that the Kaiser trenchantly commented thereon, scarifying Lord Esher.

EXPLANATION FROM BERLIN,

Berlin, March 8.

The Kaiser’s letter caused a painful impression in Germany and an uncomfortable feeling in Vienna. There are lively comments in France and America.

The Kaiser, in the course of conversation, has frequently resented the comments of the British newspapers in singling out the German Navy, not the American or French.

The Foreign Office, Berlin, has authorised Reuter’s correspondent to make the following official statement:—“lt is untrue that the Kaiser attempted to interfere with the British naval plans. His letter merely corrected certain erroneous views prevalent in England regarding the German fleet. The Emperor is no tyro in naval matters, and this step he had a perfect right to take as a naval expert. As such he is recognised in England. Just as the Emperor would reject any foreign attempt to decide the proportions of Germany’s fleet, he would repudiate any idea of interfering with the affairs of the British Navy. ’ ’

THE KAISER’S HUMOUR

Received March 9, 8.30 a.m. London, March 8.

The Observer says that the Kaiser’s . letter asks who is Lord Esher? The Emperor makes inimitable play upon Lord Esher’s offiee as Deputy-Governor of Windsor Castle and suggests 'that he ' had batter leave ships alone and stick to drainpipes.