PARTY AND NAVAL DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 152, 27 June 1914, Page 4

PARTY AND NAVAL DEFENCE.

It is. characteristic of the "Reformer!.," that bhey oliould accuse anyone who diffets from them en any matter of public policy of trying to make political capital out of his opinions and sacrificing the public in-K-rest to party prejudices. But we have not yet .been able to discover why our moraine; contemporary is e'O anxioiii? tn fasten this particular reproach on everybody who uphold* the sy stein of monetary contribution to tho Athniralty, which lias worked so long and successfully, and which w?as affirmed =o emphatically by the la.-t. Xaval Conference. For it :-s a matter of common knowledge that Mr. AtadSey and his; colKatruciS have publicly ami plainly repudiate.! the tuai Xciv Zealand should attempt to buiid a fleet iisclf. lYVhat Mr. Jas. Allen and Mr. l'it-iii.,- have described at; the "toy navy"' kic-a has -bccTi rejected and disowned by Miniutftsv in lantruarji'. ko clear and tvycrous, that it ecaMEs to have carncti conviction to everybody eloc in the Dominion, and even to every "Reform" crjran but the "New Zealand Herald." However, the '•JlcraJd ; ' .must settle its little diil'e.renecn .with its own party. Our present purpose, is simply to draw attention t.i the ridiculous position that our contemporary takes up in its iasue of to-day in regard to the proposed •Naval Conference. The -• Herald " first informed us thai this question niuat be discussed on nonparty lines-, then it tells us that it has decided the whole question in favour of a local navy; and it oonchures by assuring us that the. naval conference, when it meets, will agree entirely with the "Herald's" views. " There can \te no doubt," s-ny.s our contemporary, "that the. s-poeiai naval defence, conference called for next yrar will liually dismis-i a» obsolete the "contribution" system, and will recommend tho provision by the various dominions of contingent navies to b e under local control in time ol peace. and under Imperial control in time of war." Now. v.c would like to subtlest that the - Herald '" may yet find that its fatuous self-complacency on this subject is based on a very inadequate foundation. By what process of logic has it arrived at the conclusion that the principle of the "toy navy" which Mr. Allen and Mr. Ma-ssey have publicly repudiated is " so iibvioin-ly desirable under existing- circumstances that it must appeal to all patriotic citizens when they once permit tlimns-elves to be influenced by sound rßaisoninjr"? By what occult means has it discovered that the people oi New Zealand approve of a proposal that has never been submitted to them, and never even discussed in detail by Parliament * And. finally, on what authority does the "New Zealand Herald assort "that the Xav3l Conference will, without doubt, adopt its views in preference to those of Mr Massey and Mr Allen, and will at its biddino- cast into oblivion the system of naval subsidies which this country has so long and so consistently supported? We put these questions not because we expect, them to be answered, tout because it seems necessary to remind the general i public that the extremely confident assertions and predictions about tho Naval Defence policy in which our contemporary has indulged are absolutely baseless and groundless. We agree with the "Herald" that Mr A. M. Myers deserves credit for treating the question of Naval Defence on non-party lines. But precisely the same credit is due to Sir Joseph Ward and the whole Liberal party, who. whenever they have discussed this topic publicly, have approached it. in a thoroughly patriotic spirit, and without the least suggestion of partizan feeling. And. so far as the fate of our own convictions about Naval Defence are concerned, we can tiojio for nothing better than that the "Herald" shall continue to uphold in its own peculiar fashion a policy which Mr Massey and his colleagues have publicly disowned- and with which the people of New Zealand, as far as we know, have never expressed the slightest, sympsth*. If the question of our naval policy is t-o be discussed on non-party lines, it must be approached in Parliament with open mind, and with no Ministerial reservations. Then, and then only, can our legislators arrive at a well-balanced decision as to what action is best in the interests of the Dominion.