AN EXPLANATION WANTED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1114, 29 April 1911, Page 4

AN EXPLANATION WANTED.

The people of this country, when they read this morning the latest statement by Sir Joseph Ward on the problem of Imperial defence, will probably think that it is high time they began' to watch their representative's doings pretty closely. Thoughtful people here have no doubt realised ere this that Sin Joseph WaUd has a quite inadequate understanding of the big and complex machine that ho has some idea of getting altered, but knowing his

style of rhetoric they have not at-1 tached very much importance to his i sweeping and usually vaguelyexpressed vie;vs. The people of Great Britain, however, accustomed to statesmanship that uses language as a vehicle for definite ideas, may be inclined, when they hear Sik Joseph Ward speaking on largo topics, to see a deep meaning and dear purpose in what we in New Zealand know is mere uninstructcd rhetoric.. The latest of the Prime Minister's utterances will appear to most people to call for some explanation. In it he has come nearer to definiteness than usual, although, as usual, he was careful to avoid taking the last step towards clearness. He "declared that there could be no taxation without representation, hence New Zealand's proposals to come before the Imperial Conference."

Upon this wo have to say just now only a few words. To begin with, the crude statement of a principle that may bo taken to show that New Zealand is growing restive and resentful is not what New Zealand would ■approve if given the opportunity of .expressing an opinion. Then, it is not correct to state that the proposals arc "New Zealand's proposals." New Zealand has never considered them, and the material demand put forward by the Prime Minister in the name of this country is one that is distinctly discordant with the wishes of New Zealand. We may also add, though the limits of this article require us to postpone a fuller treatment of this point, that the cry of "no taxation without representation" is one that has no place in this matter. It takes no count of the fact that the British Navy is not_ dependent upon our assistance, while our existence depends upon the British Navy. If the principle of "control in proportion to services rendered" were to operate at all, it could only operate to give Britain's representatives an overwhelming representation in our Legislature. That phase of the question raised, however, heed not be discussed now.

What requires special notice is the following portion of the Prime Minister's statement;

"The overseas Dominions contain thirteen million people of Hie British race, and there must !)■'• a fair distribution of the burden of detence. If each of the Dominions undertook its shave, the Dominions themselves could build fifty Dreadnoughts without any great effort." It was not specified by Sir Joseph Ward whether the building of the fifty Dreadnoughts was to be a single act, or an annual performance ; but he must have had in his mind the idea that the contribution should be spread over a term of years. His idea is quite impracticable, of course, since neither Canada' nor Australia is in the least likely to vary its -naval policy. But let us examine the "fifty Dreadnoughts" scheme in its bearing upon New Zealand. The total cost would be about £90,000,000, and New .Zealand's share (one-thirteenth) would be about £7,000,000. How the Prime Minister arrived at his estimate of the joint contribution of the Dominions we do not know: probably he worked on the basis of £l per annum per head of the population, which is the British rate. In that- : case it would appear that he contemplates an . expenditure of £7,000,000, spread over ' seven years. Now, it' is - entirely certain that Sir Joseph Ward dcos not contemplate providing out of revenue the fair share of the burden of defence of which he speaks so loudly, and we are quite sure that the people of this country are indisposed to goon for ever being patriotic "on tick." This being so, what is meant by this high-sounding talk 1 Probably nothing at all. Ifc is just the customary empty rhetoric with which Sir Joseph Ward has made us familiar, and which in the Dominion we know means nothing more than a rather extravagant way of expressing loyalty to the Motherland. It may serve the purpose of attracting momentary attention to the Prime Minister, which presumably is what it is intended to do, but the after-effects on the public of Great Britain—when they discover how barren this talk really is—is not likely to be flattering to the vanity of our colonial politicians. In the past Sir Joseph Ward has generally managed to keep himself fairly well in hand when representing the Dominion in London, and we have been pleased to compliment him on his very proper appreciation of his responsibilities. On the present occasion, however, possibly under the spur of his colleague, the AttorneyGeneral, he bids fair not merely to draw ridicule on his own head, but to injure the country he has been sent to represent by creating a quite erroneous impression of what it desires, and of what it is in a position to undertake.