The Sun SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1914. A NAVAL SUBSIDY.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 55, 11 April 1914, Page 8

The Sun SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1914. A NAVAL SUBSIDY.

One policy statement escaped from Sir Joseph Ward's lips on Wednesday night in spite of himself. It related to the naval question, and Sir Joseph declared himself in favour, of a naval subsidy. So far little or no notice has been taken by the party newspapers of this important declaration which is reported by the "New Zealand Times'' to this effect: —

'' Again he would say, instead .of hanging on to the tail of the dog, they should attach themselves to the., old British bulldog. As far as the Liberal Party was concerned it was against the local navy, and stood for one Imperial Navy. (Applause.) New Zealand was prepared to do its fair share in the protection of the Empire, and that meant a continuous subsidy to the British Navy which was costing every year an enormous amount "

If Sir Joseph is not careful his figures of speech will live longer in the public memory than his Dreadnought. But it is important to learn - that he has abandoned the idea of the local navy that he insisted on at the naval conference of 1909, when it was decided to establish the China unit, partially at the expense of New Zealand. Ho and his -Liberal friends now stand for and advocate a cash contribution annually to the Imperial Navy. That is a perfectly intelligible attitude, whatever one may think of it's inherent defects. It resolves itself simply into a question of how much we are to pay. Sir Joseph does not mention any sum. But if naval defence is"as important to us as it is to the people of England, our share is going to come to a great deal more than the present Government's proposals involve. This year's naval estimates in England cost about 22/per head of the population of the United Kingdom. Assuming that the .present provision being made by the Admiralty is adequate for the whole British Empire, the charge on the white population of the Empire, exclusive of Australia, Avhich undertakes its own defence, 'would be about 19/- per head. New Zealand's share would come to Jib Cut nearly a million per annum. Does Sir Joseph Ward suggest for a moment that the Dominion is in a position to export produce annually for this amount, and get nothing in return for it but the Admiralty's assurance that we may sleep undisturbed in our beds? If, on the other hand, he suggests a small subsidy, similar to the one paid-in the past, then we are back a.t the old position of live years ago, which was abandoned by Sir Joseph Ward's Government because it was an utterly inadequate contribution, and was satisfactory neither to the Mother Country nor to New Zealand'. The' fatal defect about the subsidy plan lies in the fact that the Admiralty is always liable to

use it in the same way as it used the Dreadnought, Instead of the New Zealand Dreadnought being an extra ship it was made an excuse for buildjug one less'in England; and a cheque from New Zealand towards naval expenditure would simply lighten the British, tax-payer's burden without necessarily strengthening the Navy. This country would have no voice whatever in determining what was an adequate standard to maintain the Navy at. That is a matter for an Admiralty which has already told us that we are adequately protected by the Japanese alliance! If Sir Joseph Ward's idea is given effect to, it means that we do not even have the satisfaction of hanging on to' the tail of the British bulldog. All we have to cling to is the tail of the Japanese monkey, because the British bulldog is as busy as he can be, watching the German eagle.