NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19799, 21 November 1927, Page 8

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

ECONOMY IN THE NAVY. " For the first and only time the Fleet was moving at full speed, and every man felt the thrill of at last doing something instructive," the special correspondent of the Times wrote in describing the autumn manoeuvres of the Atlantic Fleet. " The fact was a revelation of the extent to which economy stifles the work of the Navy. Before the war the Fleet used to spend five days out of seven at sea. To-day it spends only two, and yet it is admitted that, although much useful training can be given in harbour, only practice at sea ,can promote the human material from the technically passablo to the technically excellent. Exercises often have to be postponed for days because there must be no risk of losing valuable torpedoes or wasting any moment of the total time available upon less than perfect conditions. This fact is very gratifying to the squeamish visitor, but it is undoubtedly discouraging to the Fleet. Practice ammunition has been cut down by half. No peasant hoards his pennies more jealously than a British admiral his fuel. The naval officer is as fully alive as the most rigorous Treasury official to the need for economy. He does not complain in words, but his whole attitude is instinct with the question, ' Have I and my men a fair chance?' It should not be imagined that the Navy is full of disgruntled careerists. On the contrary, magnificent though the Fleet, is as a display of material force, the attitude of the men who man it is an even more magnificent display of mor.il force. The spirit of the personnel is the only, but a very effective. antidoto to the poisoned sling of economy." THE PERSONNEL AND ITS SPIRIT. A general cheerfulness impressed the correspondent, and the greater part of this, he concluded, is due simply to unconquerable youth. " There is hardly a man in the Fleet over 40, and the vast majority of the officers are between 20 and 30," ho wrote. " Even so it is astonishing that routine work should be so cheerfully done until one realises that' the Navy is a family profession. It is alleged that there are men serving on the Revenge today who are descended from the crew of Sir Richard Grenville. It is certain that a large percentage belong to families who have served in the Navy for half a dozen generations Moreover, officers and men often pass from ship to ship together, so that there is no break in the continuity of their association. The striking and comforting consequence is that never has the type of man coming forward for the Navy been better. They are keen artisans and keen sportsmen. There is an authenticated case of a man who has never been voluntarily ashore in the whole 20 years of his service, in the course of which he has travelled to every part of the globe. He gives as his reason that he always finds plenty to do on board. In short, the Navy reverts to the finest type of medieval guild. Each ship is a floating village, or lodge, and the last cause of discontent has disappeared now that the Navy is no longer a blind-alley occupation. Nothing can seriously threaten the future of the British Navy, unless it be that it should become a party issue. It will never rriake itself one, for perhaps the most astounding characteristic of the modern naval officer is his broad-minded-ness. Woe to the man who thinks to find an indiscriminating audieitce for Big Navy theories, or for the disparagement of other navies. He will be received as a babbling bounder. The British Navy concerns itself not with politics, but with its job. It is to be hoped that it will be allowed to get on with it." THE PRESS AND POLITICS. Both Australia and South Africa have of recent years required newspapers, during election periods, to publish the authors' signatures with leading articles or reports of election meetings. The idea behind such legislation was that increased personal responsibility would check misrepresentation and injustice in the reporting of speakers, or palpably unjust comment, the London Times remarks. In the event the attempt to fix individual responsibility lias proved somewhat more difficult that was expected. So many members of the staff of a modern newspaper play a part in the collection 1 and presentation of news that the list of names would often, be comparable to that which patrons,of the cinema are by now accustomed to endure as the prelude to any film—that long rehearsal of who wrote the story, who adapted it, who photographed it, who made up the subtitles, and so on, in the manner reminiscent of " Who Killed Cock Robin ? " As many as nine or ten names.may appear at the end of any account of s, political gathering where reporters have taken turns and several sub-editors have devised headlines. Leading articles, again, are only too often the work of several pens, where one supplies the ideas and another contributes the grammar and spelling, while' a third, who understands punctuation, puts in the stops. There is a point beyond which it is foolish to attempt to limit and fix individual responsibility among the staff. Provided it is common knowledge who is responsible for the production of a newspaper, the best security against any dishonesty in reporting or violence in comment must be in its effect on the reputation of tho journal that is guilty of such practices.