The Daily News. FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1905. NAVAL EXPENDITURE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7765, 17 March 1905, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1905. NAVAL EXPENDITURE.

I » i'J'o those —and their name is legion—whose mental capacity only enables them to take a superficial view of important subjects, the vast expenditure which is annually entailed by naval rafuirements is »|toik' incomprehensible. To intelligent and patriotic minds, however, the subject I presents quite a different aspect. Vet there is a marvellous consensus of opinion on one point—the popularity of tho service. Were it possible to concentrate at a given lvndezvous the entire fleets of the world it would be the grandest and most costly spectacle that could be witnessed. To thousands of minds the same questions would occur. What is tho real us.: of all these ships of war ? and. Is the stupendous expense justified Neither of these queries are difficult to answer, but Uie replies involve a just consideration of two important factors in the welfare of nations, honour and commerce—national security and individual prosperity. The crashing burden which is imposed on all the Powers concerned in conseiqucnce of this gig-an-tic expenditure is one from which, in the case of the British Umpire.' thore is no possible escape. At. the outset of his classical analysis of " Sea Power," Captain Italian puts it that " till' necessity o-f a' navy, in the rej .strict'-:! sense of the word, springs from the existence of a peaceful shipping." It might be assumed ! from this dictum that the extent of the peaceful shipping to be protected, is the direct measure of the naval force required to protect it. This, however, cannot be logically deduced from tile facts :rfid figures bearing on the question. Take, for instance, the t'nited Slates, with a ( mercantile marine of only som« 880,UUU tons, and a. naval expenditure of nearly seventeen millions. Compare this with the mercantile marine of the British Etiipiie. of over eleven and a half million tons (more than twelve times the tonnage of America) and a naval outlay of over thirty-six and a quarter millions, or not much more than twice as much as the corresponding expenditure of the t'nited St-ates. It would not be legitimate 1o infer j from this either that the expenditure of America is excessive, or the British expenditure inadequate. A I much wiser solution is to be found in the fact that the naval force

whieli U essential lo a nation for the protection of its peaceful shipping, ami the security of its military communications across the sea. s in lime of war, must be based on the htivngth of the hostile navu] forces likely lo assail ft in any reasonably provable contingencies of international conflict, it will be seen, therefore, that n nation's maritime tonnage is not a direct measure of - the naval expenditure it requires. H is equally open to 'demonstration Jiat neither is It a direct measure of its maritime commerce. For instance, the tonnage of the United Slates is, as staled, 888,000 odd. The annual value of its imports and exports by sea is £492,000,000. The tonnage of the -German Empire is 2,200,1700 odd, with a value of » £(50(5,000,000, not wry much greater than that of America, Yet Germany's mercantile tonnage is two or three times as great. The explana- „ tion is that a very large proportion of the American goods is carried by British ships, and possibly a't a pinch it t*buld all In? done by British vessels. The stune consideration probably, applies t<» all the other Towers except (Jermaii.v, which comes a bad second to Great Britain—less than two and a quarter million tons. as against over eleven and a half million tons—Hint is with less than a fifth. As the mercantile tonnage - iti all the Powers, Britain excepted, amomiu wfijy to a little over eight - million tons, fJvrc is no possibility of a transfer af British commerce to 1 foreign - bottoms, even jf such a course were politically feasible or economically desirable. .Bearing- in 1 mtiul, therefore, the obligation on a ~ nation to pn>jJ2Ct its commerce, and the necessity for coping successfully with un ( v hostile forces illfcly to as- 1 sailit.mival expenditure must, be regarded as fvased- on a far different principle than that involved in tju? i " mere value of a ,naUon's commerce. ' In British naval expenditure 1 was X2(»,(>00,000. France came ® next with £11,000,(100, America l cC9.700.000, Hnssia £t>,7otW)Ol), and ! ® Germany £(>,000,000, Kxrluding f America, this gives an aggregate for the three great naval Towers of con- 1 tinenlal h'-mopc of twenty- ' lour and a half millions. British i naval expenditure last year rose to 1 £.'s/3.200,000 odd. Unit of America to 1 ' Frane.e £ 12.500,000. (tus.shi £ I 2 f ii0O,0()0, and Germany £t0.20u.000, showing that Great i Britain still ina/ntaiiud its lead. White the interests it) \»>.- protected by Britain hav<> increased jn jt he Just live years by ahold. Mile-sixth. the , osi of production has rUen to over 1 ja i bird mor»\ cnhs«\yuem on \he in- ' jr/ease in strength of I In* naval for- J !ri -s «pi its possible asMiilailts. andj 1 .rarity* and prosperity of the coin- j j ni,-s.' whose sha*<> *>/ live gigantic 1 !buivleti is not half a million, while! , H India is excluded the contribution )l , falls below £2oO.o'*rt. i»n amount ,i that Kenss very trifling when cmtv « pared with the thirty-five and a-half : million* rtJjich is borne by the I'nit- 1 j c'-.'l Kingdom, j j -• •• 1