A DOMINION'S NEUTRALITY

Southland Times, Issue 16792, 22 July 1911, Page 6

A DOMINION'S NEUTRALITY

SOUTH AFRICA’S NEED. LORD SELBOURNE’S VIEW. (By Telegraph.—Pr*a» Association. —Copyright.) LONDON, July 21. Received July 21, 9.25 p.m. Lord Selbourne in a letter in reply to the Volksteim article in regard to a Dominion’s neutrality, shows that all parts of the Empire are dependent for safety on the navy, whose duty it is to destroy an enemy's ships wherever found! Under no circumstances could it ho to the Empire’s interest that South Africa should remain neutral in a war wherein the Empire was engaged. The Admiralty had not spent £2,000,000 on dockyards at Simonstown for amusement. "Does anybody suppose,” he asks, “that Simonstown can bo used as a naval base and the rest of South Africa remain neutral?’ There was a part of the Empire whereto command of the sea was more essential, and if South Africa lost command of the sea South African’s would be unable freely to develop their nationality, and a foreign Power possessing command of the sea need only seize every port from Capetown to Delagoa to inflict on South Africa complete loss of trade or enforce compliance with its directions.”

AN AUSTRALIAN VIEW. MELBOURNE, July 21. Mr Hughes considers the suggestion of the Nationalist press of South Africa that dominions should observe neutrality in the, case of war between Britain and a foreign Power as a complete negation of both ideal and the effect of Empire. Such a position would be dangerous and impossible.