The Daily News MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1912. CANADA'S NAVAL POLICY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 173, 9 December 1912, Page 4

The Daily News MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1912. CANADA'S NAVAL POLICY.

(The announcement of the Canadian naval policy lias caused quite a considerI able flutter in Continental dovecotes, and the offer of three Dreadnoughts as a gift to the Empire is typical of tho loyalty and patriotism of the huge Dominion. Our sister colony is, of course, only doing her duty in helping to maintain British prestige on the high seas, but it is always much easier to recognise a duty than to fulfil it. Tt his become more and more apparent of !,ii.' years that .German ndivity in ihv.-: matters must be met by a corre?p'-,; 1 {. ing activity in Great Britain if she is to maintain her two-Power standard, and this rapidity of ship-building on the part of the Motherland's most formidable neighbor necessitates an enormous expenditure. It is only right and failthat the children of the Empire should shoulder their share of this burden, for (their interests and the interests of Britain are in every sense of the word identical. It may that the German activity has no sinister background. Indeed, we have a deliberate official assurance to that effect, for, speaking in the debate on the second reading of the -Naval Estimates in the Keich3tag in February, Admiral von Tirpitz, Secretary of State for the Admiralty, said that from the beginning the German Navy had never been intended for aggressive purposes. '-'But," he continued, "German sea power must be such that any other Great Power would be running a risk if it attacked Germany. It is quite an astonishing mistake in England," he added, "that we have accelerated the construction of our navy outside the provisions of the Navy Law. That would have been possible if the Reichstag had voted us the money for the purpose. In point of fact, we have not had a penny for the purpose, and so we have been strangely affected by this assertion that has cropped up in England. There has been no lack of explanation on our side." But in the face of this statement, the Reichstag proceeded to vote nearly twelve millions of money for naval construction in 191112, as against Great Britain's seventeen millions, making our "two keels for one" policy look exceedingly foolish. The Germany Navy Law to which Admiral Tirpitz referred provides for the laying down each year from 15108 to 1911 of three battleships and one armored cruiser; and each year from 1912 to 1917 of one battleship and one armored cruiser; also from 1008 to 1917 of two protected cruisers and twelve destroyers. This programme has been faithfully adhered to so far, but the heavy votes of last year and this year suggest that it io be materially departed from in

the immediate future. It has been pointed out that in 1914, at the contemplated rate of progress, there would be no British margin in Dreadnoughts against the Triple Alliance,, and that, as a result, our navy was exceptionally liable to risks. Speaking on this subject, Mr. Balfour wisely observed that "it was necessary to endure what was almost an intolerable burden rather than risk visible dangers. Soft words and diplomacy," he added, "had hitherto failed to secure disarmament, and the hard facts of the situation in 1914 had to be faced. Besides all responsibilities elsewhere, Great Britain had to keep a supremacy in home waters and in the Mediterranean, which for over two centuries had been regarded as of the highest importance to her." It is to aid in maintaining that supremacy that Canada has made her generous offer, following in the footsteps of our country, whose gift of a Dreadnought at a critical period in the Empire's history stirred the world to a realisation that the lion's cubs were cutting their teeth. The moral lesson of Canada's offer is really of more value to the Empire than the two and a half millions of money which she proposes to expend. There is no suggestion at the moment that Germany has any hostile intent at the back of her naval policy, but on the principle that it is better to be sure than sony, it is essential that the Empire should maintain its original standard where the navies of the world are concerned. It is not right that the whole of this burden should be cast upon the Motherland, and it is "up to" the dependencies who look to her for protection to help to foot the bill with no uncertainty, until such time as it has been made apparent that the Mistress of the Seas is determined to maintain her policy of "two keels for one."