THE NAVAL CONTRIBUTION.

Evening Star, Issue 19549, 6 May 1927, Page 11

THE NAVAL CONTRIBUTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your correspondent “New Zealander” thinks that New Zealand’s contribution to the naval defence of the Empire represents a greater annual sacrifice than . that of Britain, but ho gives no adequate I reason tor his belief. His attack upon Hie | Navy League as an anti-patriotio organisa- : tion and upon my own sincerity will be assessed at their proper _ value by your ■ readers. The crux of “ New Zealander’s argument is contained in the words: “There ' is nothing unfair in holding that what New Zealand spends tor naval purposes should bo spent so as to produce at least as much indirect benefit to the country as Britain , gets for similar British expenditure." I would only say about this extraordinary ' statement that if we provided our fair ■ quota towards naval defence on the above I principle, our per capita contribution in 1 money would have to bo enormously greater than that contributed by Britain. It would involve manufacturing steel, building warships, and alt their equipment, building a naval base, and providing the men and officers necessary, also making provi- : sion for adequate training. Now, a New Zealand-built warship and New Zealand born and trained bluejackets may be assumed to be as effective for defence as similar units provided by Britain, but they would probably cost at least twice as much, so our per capita contribution would have to be at least double that of Britain. “New Zealander” either does not want us to provide our share of naval defence, or he wishes the country to be taxed far more heavily than I suggested. One would almost imagine that Britain gained economically by naval expenditure. This is, of course, utterly fallacious, Reduced to its elements, naval defence means devoting a certain proportion of the population to that pupose, and this, of course, is economic, loss. Does "New Zealander” pretend that in New Zealand we devote as large a portion of our population to naval defence as is done by Britain? If not, his whole argument falls to the ground. Why should the men on the New Zealand cruisers not send their money to England ? Their wives and families have to be supported. The cure for this is for New Zealand to provide the men. Their pay and deferred pay will then remain here. Thd Navy League has always advocated this. “New Zealander” thinks that a naval base should bo built at some New Zealand harbor. The Admiralty, fortunately, takes wider views, and does not want all naval bases established in Britain. Surely it is not necessary to reassert that the defence of New Zealand was secured in the late war at Cocos Island, at the Falklands, and in the North Sea. In future it is more likely to be secured in soma remoter part of the world than at Akaroa or Pioton.— I am, eto., James Begs. May 5.