ARMAMENTS EXPENDITURE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18198, 18 September 1922, Page 6

ARMAMENTS EXPENDITURE.

I —*— j So far as the figures relating to New Zealand serve as a guide, the document issued by the League of Nations, comparing expenditure on army, navy, and air force in the 1922 Budgets .with that of 1913, does not prove much. According to the cabled report, the Dominion's expenditure has increased by 148 per cent. The figure is so utterly fantastic that there must surely be a mistake somewhere en route. In the financial year 1913-14 Now Zealand spent £538,569 on defence, of which £188,569 was on the military forces and £50,000 a contribution toward the upkeep of the British Navy. The expenditure in the year 1921-22 was £718,967, of which £415,450 was military and £303,517 naval. If the military expenditure of 1913-14 be compared with the total outlay of 1921-22, there is an increase of approximately 48 per cent. Where the all-important figure one before tht? 48 comes from is a matter for conjecture. Even granting that mistake may not be in the League's document, the 48 per cent, is sufficiently inaccurate. It ignores what was admittedly a totally inadequate contribution, but still a contribution, to the cost of the navy. Now, when New Zealand is endeavouring to bear a slightly more adequate proportion of the cost of the Empire's naval defence, this most peacefu' Dominion is given by the League the unenviable distinction of being one of the most militaristic in the world, being ranked on the corrected figures next to Japan and Belgium. The position, thus analysed, merely shows how deceptive bare statistics, without any of the attendant circumstances explained, can be.. As the document apparently does not allow the naval contribution of 1913 it is a good teat . to compare appropriations for land forces alone for the two years. In 1913-14 the Dominion, as stated, spent £488,569 in this way, in 1921-22 £415,450, and this year proposes to spend £317,616. So New Zealand is really a pacifically-minded member of the League of Nations, and not the sabre-rattling community it is shown by implication to be. As to tho naval contribution, apart from the possibility that it is counted twice, both for Britain and New Zealand, it is surely not an unreasonable item for a country in such a position and with such a coastline as ; this Dominion. The League should ; bo informed that New Zealand is not the potential cause of another feverish race to pile up armaments, such as that formerly caused by the ambitions of Germany.