The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1935. “STILL ONLY FIFTH.”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20098, 3 May 1935, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1935. “STILL ONLY FIFTH.”

Interesting references to the equipment of six squadrons of the Royal Air Force are made in the cable messages this morning. Ten other squadrons it is stated are in the course of equipment. Some of these are stationed overseas. “The present re-equipment is normal,” adds the message, “and is not due to any expansion programme, but it is .proceeding on a somewhat more extensive scale than has been the practice in recent years.” In view of the contradictory estimates of British air strength being given from time to time, it is of immense importance for the inhabitants of the British Empire to know what the position of our Air Force in relation to the forces of other Powers really is. Mr Baldwin’s recent statement was most disquieting. He announced that “our Air Force is still only fifth; we do not seek equality with the largest.” Sir Austen Chamberlain evidently thought this estimate was too sanguine, as he declared that “Britain’s Air Force is sixth or seventh.” There is good reason to believe that the real order of the world’s air fleets to-day is much as follows: Germany, United States, Russia, France, Italy, Japan, and then possibly Great Britain, seventh. But it is not certain that Britain is ahead of Rumania, and if it is not, Great Britain stands only eighth. Such a deplorable position of weakness is totally irre : eoncilable with the pledges which the Government has repeatedly given. So far back as May last year Mr Baldwin promised the nation “no less a position in the air than a position of equality with the greatest Power within fighting distance of our shores,” In July and November he repeated this pledge, slightly varying the terms but not the substance. If (he Government meant business and realised the enormous and ever-increasing peril which such weakness involves for Great Britain it would be carrying out a programme for the immediate construction not of a few dozen machines but literally squadrons of aeroplanes, without which Britain must be at the mercy of any aggressor. The intentions of Germany are only too obvious; moreover, the backing of a powerful navy now making a bid for sea power with entirely new ships, is visualised by the Germans in support of the most powerful fighting air arm now at the command of a European Power.

SAFETY OF THE HARBOUR.

Although the attendance of the public at the meetings held in the rural districts at which harbour policy has been discussed, has so far been rather unsatisfactory, the apparent lack of interest in meetings bears no relation to the vital importance of the issues involved in the discussion on harbour affairs. As far as the town is concerned, it can be said that popular sentiment is being marshalled solidly behind the candidates who espouse a progressive policy. It is nevertheless rather significant that although a clash of ideas is present in the country districts, the future of the harbour hears more relation to the financial interests of the country' than to the town. Both Mr Ritchie and Mr Orbell, who are taking the trouble to address the electors in their areas, have made a sufficiently thorough study of harbour problems to be able to express 'some firmly grounded views on the big issues that have been raised within recent years as affecting the future policy of the Timaru Harbour Board. One of the notoriously unprogressive members of the Harbour Board charged the critics the other day with “running down the port” and thereby damaging its reputation in the eyes of shipmasters. A moment’s reflection should enable even the most stubborn members of a harbour board to see that such a conception is entirely erroneous. Such a suggestion presupposes that shipowners are guided by mere hearsay or by public discussion. As a matter of cold fact the principal shipping companies whose deep sea ships work the Port of South Canterbury, are in possession of the fullest information relating to the state of all harbour entrances, the accessibility of ports and the facilities available for the expeditious handling of big ships. No mere talk by defenders of a “do nothing” policy will make the least impression on the shipowners. Even the fact that certain members of the Board have felt compelled to speak plainly on harbour questions, 'does not mean much to owners of ships. Therefore, the allegation that anyone who says anything which does not meet with the approval of the defenders | of a conservative harbour policy, is guilty of “running down the port,” is wholly without foundation. All available information is in possession of the owners of the big ships and the movements of their vessels are determined, not by talk indulged in at the meetings of harbour boards, but by the knowledge of actual conditions prevailing at ports of call. Mr Ritchie, who spoke out of a wide knowledge of harbour affairs mentioned at a meeting he addressed at Fairview on Wednesday .evening, that “there exists among masters and shipowners a certain amount of

anxiety, which he wished to dispel from their minds.” Manifestly the only course open to the local governing body into whose keeping lias been entrusted the care of one of the most valued assets the district possesses, is to provide such adequate depth of water and up-to-date port facilities that no uncertainty will exist in the minds of shipowners. The point of view which ought to impress itself on the rural community is that any uncertainty or anxiety which may exist in the minds of the most influential shipowners, represents another lever that can be used in support of centralised shipping. As Mr Ritchie suggested in a comprehensive review of the harbour affairs, it is admitted in most authoritative circles, that centralisation would add to the freight charges on produce drawn from centres like South Canterbury and shipped from main ports. Comparatively speaking, the amount required each year to keep the Port of South Canterbury up to present day requirements is small. In other words, all the rural districts are asked to do is to help to provide an insurance policy against centralisation which would impose upon every exporter, and importer as well for that matter, an additional burden | which would be infinitely greater than tlie premium against such an undesired trend, represented in the rates to meet the cost of harjbour improvements. It may be said that the country cannot afford to meet the cost of harbour improvements; as against such a contention, it can be said with the utmost emphasis that the rural districts of South Canterbury, which depend upon the export of their produce at Timaru, cannot run the risk of neglecting the Port, and thereby bringing nearer the evil day of the centralisation of shipping in main ports, with all the evil consequences that will bring alike to the producer in the country and the importer in the town. The latter, however, is perhaps in the more enviable position because he can pass on the extra charges to the consumer in both town and country, whereas the producer in the country must bear the burden of his own lack of prudence and vision in relation to harbour affairs.

THE PRICE OF PROMISES.

Labour’s organised participation in municipal politics in Timaru has not aroused very much enthusiasm because very few electors are likely to be carried off their feet by mere parades of promises. The x ,eo Pl e of Timaru know quite well that the road to municipal affluence cannot be paved with good intentions. The official candidates of the Labour Party who are seeking the municipal suffrage of the people of Timaru, have set out a number of planks in their municipal policy, but no candidate has so far attempted to show that the election to office of municipal councillors, who are representative of the ideals of the Labour Party, will furnish the means of providing additional and improved municipal services without dipping deeper into the pockets of the ratepayers; indeed, the official candidates of the Labour Party ought to show a little more frankness in dealing with the financial side of the programme they have placed before the municipal electors. So far, three of the rival Mayoral candidates have admitted that they possess no sovereign solution I of the x»roblem of unemxdoyment. Only by the raising of loans or by heavier rating can more liberal provisions be made out of the local purse for the unemployed, than has been possible over the past few years. No candidate so far lias been able to show the way ito a municipal Utopia without imposing additional financial obligations upon the ratepayers. If the nominees of the Labour Party seek to grant concessions, provide improved community services, subsidise various organisations and , otherwise made demands on the municipal purse, they must show the way to provide the funds to meet the bigger budget ouigoings if they hope to invest their candidature with a mantle of genuineness and reasonableness. It is, of course, not a difficult task to make promises, particularly electioneering promises. But it ought to be conceded to all members of local governing bodies who are going out of office, that it does not necessarily follow they are without progressive ideas and devoid of' sympathy with their less fortunate fellow citizens, because they have not performed miracles. The financial activities of the municipal administrators in Timaru are necessarily limited by the depth of the borough purse. If then the nominees of the Labour Party are offering the people of Timaru a number of promises that will involve additional expenditure, they ought clearly to indicate the source from which they will draw the money needed to meet additional municipal commitments.