Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 1900. THE PREMIER AND THE DEFENCES.

Evening Post, Volume LIX, Issue 4, 5 January 1900, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 1900. THE PREMIER AND THE DEFENCES.

At Pahautanui on Wednesday evening the Premier took the opportunity of making what he seemed to consider a reply to some recent criticisms of the defences of the colony. As a matter of fact ha only unburdened himself of a lot of Jingo rhodomontade, and unworthy imputation of political bias and disloyalty on the part of those who, having good cause to place but Blender alliance upon his platform statements, desire that there shall be some reasonable proof of our preparedness tp defend our shores in case of emergency. That we are obviously not prepared to oppose any number ot trained marksmen to an invading force is, we contend, a fact for which the Premier is primarily if not wholly responsioie, as we have already shown and shall continue to make clear until effective steps are taken to remedy this fatal defect in our military system. As for the supply of arms — that is, up-to-date weapons and ammunition — our belief is that the country lacks both for effective defence. " How are we prepared in New Zealand?" ur'iei th« Prs*

mier, and then proceeds to answer:-— " They could rest assured that the Government hud not been behindhand, and if the contingency urose New Zealand would be prepared to meet it. (Applause.) Ho was not going Into details, and would not say. how many rifles or'big guns they had in tho colony, or what ammunition was in stock. Kruger didn't tell the British what he had in stock ; he would have been a stupid man to have done so. It was a recognised rule of the British authorities not to divulge such matters. Some of the newspapers of the colony hud stated that the colony was unprepared, and was short of rifles and ammunition. The statement was absolutely incorrect. They were short of neither rifles nor ammunition, nor were they short of fighting men. "..Now if we are prepared, accurate knowledge of the fact would not only inspire public confidence but it would give pause to any invader, while the Premier's effort at concealment wih only breed suspicion that he dare not disclose the truth. As for Mr. Seddon's appeal to British precedent to justify suppression of such information, we would commend to his perusal the report of the debate on the Army Estimates in the House of Commons on 21st June, 1896. On that occasion Mr. Brodrick called attention to the supply and reserve of small arms ammunition, contending that it was insufficient. He concluded by moving the reduction of the salary of the Secretary for War by £100. The amendment was carried, and the Rosebery Government went out of office. It is a curious spectacle that of Mr. Seddon sheltering himself behind the traditions and the practice of -the War Office, but since he has resorted to such authority we will show how he may go further in the same direction, and relieve the public mind of some of its anxiety. Let the Premier officially ask the Commandant of the Forces if, in his opinion, the colony has at its command a sufficient number of modern rifles and ammunition for purposes of defence against an invading force, and publish his reply. Because our pinchbeck Csesar chooses to say that the country is sufficiently armed for any emergency, we are required to accept his .opinion as a statement of fact. We prefer the opinion of Colonel Penton, and challenge the Premier to make it known. "It would be well," the Premier went on to say, " if those who took up this question for political purposes were to recognise that this was a matter in which all political differences must be sunk, and they must all work shoulder to shoulder, and show the outside world and our kindred that we will stand or fall together and fight to the last man on behalf of our flag and our country." The contemptible statement that those i-ivho are discussing this question on lines unacceptable to the Government are doing so for political purposes we will for the present pass by, but we would here ask of what avail it will be to " stand or fall /together and fight to the last man " if we are unweaponed to shoot the other man, or being weaponed, know not how to shoot. But the crowning absurdity of the Premier's warlike speech was the end of it. "If ever the time arose when an emergency had to be met, and there were found any shortcomings on his part in regard to defence matters, then would be the time to complain. In the meantime no one for political purposes had any right to play into the hands of our enemies and the enemies of the Empire." That is to say that we have no right to complain of the administration of the Premier, as Minister for Defence, until' the foe is at our gate and Mr. Seddon fails to provide the means to drive him out. We do not like the political methods of the right hon. gentleman, but we would save him from the fate that would overtake him under such circumstances if he met with his deserts. Better that he admit his "shortcomings" now and get authority to repair them by voice of public opinion, or if need be by special session of Parliament. As to "playing into the hands of our enemies," it almost seems as though the Premier had cast about to find what might possibly be said of the Minister for Defence, and so discounted the possibility by charging it upon his critics. It is a method of defence with which he is familiar.