The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1914. THE IMPERIAL NAVY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8783, 13 July 1914, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1914. THE IMPERIAL NAVY

There is no doubt anywhere, we believe, that the x>roposal made by Sir Joseph Ward at the Imperial Conference of 1011 represents the only lines on which the naval problem can bo satisfactorily settled. The whole question lies in this nutshell; the only satisfactory solution is the solution that will give enough ships for everything; the Ward proposal would satisfy that condition at once; the existing attempts by Australia, Canada, and Now Zoalaord can never satisfy it. The Now Zealand scheme is not formulated, while its inadequacy is admitted hy its friends; all criticism of it as a local navy is vehemently denounced aa wrong, and all else about it is a fog. The Australian system looks on paper good enough for solving the problem after many years, while giving 'iio thought to the needs that may arise in these seas during that interval of time. In practice, however, the sum, huge as it is, of the present estimate, will ho doubled as a part of the complete defence system 'by the cost of uniforming the railway gauges. This consideration, together with the backward state of the dockyards, which is another source of very large expense, to say nothing of other matters Of increasing cost, puts the Australian navy out of the running as a solver of the Imperial problem. The Canadian solution set on foot by Sir Wilfrid Laufier has been suspended by the neck, and the substitute of his Successor has been put on the side of the track. Neither of these can ho solutionis. There remains only _ the scheme jsroposod . by Sir Joseph, AV ard. The financial side of that scheme is unquestionable,* and at the Conference no one attempted to question it. Were the scheme accepted there would, within a very' few years, bo an adequate navy in Pacific waters, as well as a substantial addition to the navy in the waters of the Mediterranean and the North Sea. It is simply a matter of money to build and man the ships, and the scheme provides the basis of the finance. members referred to this building as an offer by Sir Joseph Ward of ships of the battle type in first-class numbers, on his own authority. But they only succeeded in proving the depth of a political partisanship which deliberately misrepresents facts. The scheme would provide all the necessary ships at any time it were required to -do so; that was admitted at the Conference, by the confinement of all the questions put to Sir Joseph Ward at the Conference, to the constitutional side of his scheme, the financial being accepted. So much it was necessary for the sake of the navy and in justice to Sir Joseph Ward to say before noticing the unfortunate manner in which the member for Oamaxu referred to what took place at the Imperial Conference of 1911. The fact that the whole of the Xtoform party in Parliament sided with Mr Lee, even to acclamation of Ids essay in criticism, makes a reference on our part to the subject all the more necessary. Meeting a hostile critic with “Do you know who I am, sir?” is a frequent source of ridicule. But there are cases in which the question is very pertinent. Sir Joseph Ward was the representative of this Dominion at that conference. Hi© fact does not bind anyone to the support of any of his opinions expressed at the conference; and, of course, it does not prove the truth of those opinions. But the fact entitles Sir Joseph Ward to the respectful consideration of the people of this country, without distinction of party. The country must stand hy its representatives either to support him in any particular issue or to cover Ids retreat- The respect duo to his position implies respect for his motives and approval of the manner of Ids efforts. Nothing can justify any section of the country in joining with hostile outside critics at the Conference in hostility of criticism. The rule is not confined to Imperial conferences. ' On ‘the contrary, it extends to everything in the sphere allotted to representatives of the country in distant lands. It is deplorable that this rule was forgotten by the Ministerialists at the bidding of Mr Leo during Ids Wind-up of the debate. The reason of their forgetfulness is obvious. Mr Leo expressed himself thankful that Sir Joseph AVard had not committed us to the great responsibilities of Ids -proposal. But that is just what the proposal could never have done. Even bad it been accepted by the conference thole would have been no commitment of this Dominion. The proposal would have had to come to the Dominion Parliament. To express thankfulness that tho country was not committed is only a way of charging our respresentativo with the intention of committing us to a policy important and perhaps burdensome without authority and without consultation. Such a charge could only be made by a .Partisan. The whole lino of the criticism of the Conference proposal and the whole Ministerialist attitude to that line were rank partisanship; just as much as those allegations of specific Dreadnoughts earlier in tha debate. And this from the men who are always insisting that the navy must bo

kept free from all party friction. J'hcir case is made worse by the unfair method of quotation adopted. Such a method they would have all blushed to apply to a public enemy. But they applied it to our representative with unholy Klee.

It only remains to consider the position in which theses critics who havo permitted themselves 'to forget tho duty of tho country to its representative, have placed themselves. They havo identified themselves with the principles advocated by the men who put critical questions to Sir Joseph Ward at tho Conference. '1 hoy supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and Sir Wilfrid’s leading note about tho navy is that Canada should havo a local navy and the right to declare for neutrality in tho ovont of war. They supported Mr Fisher, whoso idea is that the Commonwealth and all other overseas should havo a local navy without tho option of neutrality. They supported Mr Asquith, who declared that tho voting in tho Council or Parliament—or whatever it might bo called —of Defence. would be unfair to the overseas, and that it could never bo allowed to take away the British Government’s control over the question of peaco and war. It follows that the Ministerial party has been committed by its support of Mr Loo to a local navy with tho right of neutrality in time of war; to a local nary, without such right; and against any system of Imperial Federation in which the overseas havo not equal Parliamentary weight with tho United Kingdom, and from which tho control of peaco and war is not entirely kept; in clher words against any formal system of federation that it is possible to conceive. It is a dreadful position for reasonable men to bo committed to. Wo wish Mr Lee and his friends joy of it. But we think their joy will eventually ho damped' by tho thought that they lapsed into partisanship when they ought to have played tho game.