CORRESPONDENCE LOCAL NAVIES

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27, 2 February 1915, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE LOCAL NAVIES

TO THB EDITOR. Sir,— ln your leading article of B»tur« day last you charge the opponent* of the "Local Navy idea?' with having ignored the necessity of a policy of selfreliance and personal service, bul this is not so. The necessity of training New Zeaknders for tho Navy should be admitted by all, and no doubt the Admiralty would welcome and encourage to the full any steps taken in that direc tion. Without loss, of self-reliance we should' all be proud of the fact that our Dominion forms part and parcel of the one great nation that has, for more than a century, been looked up to as the policeman of the seas, as the protector of the weaker nations, and the leader of tha civilised world. Many of us who have visited the Old Country, and many thousands who have not, cannot help feeling a part proprietorship in the noble traditions of our past. The development of Imperial unity is a vital thing for us. It is only by the closest co-operation of defence and the rigid concentration of sea. strength that we can hope to maintain our proud (but not aggressive) position. As the London Daily Telegraph remarked some two years back : " For the British Empire disunited there would be one pradicable end as this world goes—its smaller units the spoil of enemies, its greater units conquered and humbled in their isolation, sunk to the position of minor or subject states. Such are the two tremendous possibilities— the glorious hope and the gigantic peril— that are at the heart of Imperialism to-day." You are generous enough to admit that the gift of the Dreadnought was well timed, and, although far away, she is helping to protect the Pacific nevertheless ri , and you commend the statement of the London Times ac to our success in aIJ parts since tho war commenced, having been "won under cover oi the ships that watch day and night in the North Sea." Your final contention, that the gift ship from New Zealand did not really increase our naval strength in the North bea, but merely saved the pockets of British taxpayers, is open to criticism. For years past we in New Zealand have/ in common with all the other out-lyin* portions of the Empire, more or less failed to realise our utter dependence upon the keeping open of our trade routes —or, rather, we have been complacently content to allow the Mother Oountrv. the weary Titan," to stagger under a huge naval outlay required for the world-wide protection of our seas. Comparatively recently, we had "come to light only to the extent of about 2r per head of population, as against some 20s per head contributed by British taxpayers. Why this huge difference? and why should a little equalisation in the burden of sea-power be begrudged? burely the onus of protection of our r 5S^ commerce (now reaching some £50,000,000) should not be allowed to fall almost entirely upon the Old Country? lou say that the Australian battlecruiser, having been reserved for the Pacific, represents an addition to the gross naval strength of the Empire, while the New Zealand does not. It is questionable, under existing circumstances, whether the Australia can be of appreciable value to the nation until she, in accordance with the recognised rules of naval strategy, seeks out the enemy in the North Sea ahd takes her place m the actual fighting line.— l am, etc.. C.W.P. Wellington, Ist February —