The West Coast Times SATURDAY, MAY 2nd. 1914. THE NAVAL POLICY.

West Coast Times, 2 May 1914, Page 2

The West Coast Times SATURDAY, MAY 2nd. 1914. THE NAVAL POLICY.

A.\ eminent European publicist, in one of bis books declares that Governments arc nearly always right and Oppositions arc nearly always wrong, and bis apothegm is substantially true. It follows -that Oppositions ought to be circumspect in their criticisms. The true principle of political criticism consists not in making wild and indiscriminate attacks upon the Government on every possible and impossible occasion merely for the sake of attacking it, hut in reserving eensnre for those opportamites alone where it can be launched from firm ground. If this theory of political controversy is sound, and commonsense at once asserts that it is, it follows that the' so-called Liberal press of New Zealand has a great deal In learn, and chiefly that it ia destroying its own influence and defeating its own-ends by discovering so many mare’s nests. The number of misconceptions and misrepresentations of the actions and aims of the Massey Government which have claimed space in the columns of such journals as the “New Zealand Times” during the past eighteen mouths or two years is simply phenomenal: but they have all been of so gross and palpable a nature that there has beta no difficulty wbatevo.’ in refuting them- To-day we wish to say something about tho attitude of the Liberal leaders, notably Sir Joseph _

Will'd, ;ind of the Liberaf press loir;'ids the naval policy of tlio Massey j Government. This ayjtude of Sir Joseph Ward we can understand to ,somo extent, for it is partly dictated hy pique and conceit. .Hut the other leaders and their press? Surely here is an example of attack upon the Gnveminent purely and simply for the sake of attacking it. Everybody knows that the Ward naval policy, if not actually framed with an eye to a baronetcy, was at any rate productive of ono. Everybody knows also that the press of the colony was gagged in order to ensure the success of that policy, the futility of which might have been too soon exposed had criticism been unfettered. And everybody knows,

too, that the lapse of time has proved that policy to be a failure at all points. The agreement of 1909 has been ignored by the Admiralty, the British squadrons in .Eastern waters bqve been whittled down, ami our own Dreadnought, which was givoi with the ostensible object of increasing pro tanto the strength of the British Navy, has been absorbed into one of the Home Fleets, and has been used as a pretext for not building one ship provided for in the noi null British programme. In spite of these facts, which have not been and coiiuot lie denied, the ” Liberal” press of this country—hypnotised hy the. one idea of attacking the Government—persists in hailing the man who was unanimously turned down at the Imperial Conference of 1911 as a Heaven-sent, naval strategist, and the most eminent Imperial statesman of modern times. It is enough to make the very angels weep. But Sir Joseph, who love.s limelight and flattery, basks in the sun of adulation, easily Conceives himself to ho the one anil only infallible Imperial genius, and, to convince himself of the fact, starts in his Usual path of misrepresentation. He

follows two linos of argument, both of which iiro susceptible of easy refutation In tin' first place lio assorts that .New Zealand lias embarked ’upon the >constitution of a virtually independent, loeid navy, which of course is (piite untrue. In (ho second place, ho assorts that the cost of the new policy will pul- an intolerable strain upon the litiamvs of the Dominion. Now, it has la on clearly shown by (he lion, .lames Allen that the total Tost of the new agreement with the Admiralty will he £150,0110, which will provide us with a ftaitiintj: ship on which the men who, according to the First Lord of the Admiralty, are so Inußy needed, will he trained, and a llristol cruiser to he stationed in the.je waters to assist in the pinteetion of, onr trade routes. On the other hand, it is on record that at the Imperial Conference of 1911 Sir .Joseph Ward seriously announced (hat lie was willing to. tax the, people of New Zealand ten shillings per head for naval tit fence purposes, which means £509,001) per annum. What becomes of bis argument (hat. an expenditure ol ,£150,000 per annum is an. intolerable strain upon onr linaliees? Now let ns d'aw the attention of our readers to the net result of the “Liberal” naval policy presented in tabular form Yi at Contribution VesStds Tonnage 1887 £ 20,000 10 19,500 1905 40,000 12 25,735 1910 100,000 9 41,000 1913 240,000 3 0,845 Comment is needless. Let ns, on the other hand, contrast the policy of the Ward Government with that of the Cemmonwealth, The \Vard policy gave ns nothing, and made no suitable addition to the naval resurees of the Umpire. The Australian policy has pros vided the Commonwealth with a small but substantial navy which makes a real addition to the nava'l strength of ll e Km pi re, and lias enabled the Admiralty already to concent rate more ships in the N'orth sea. Which was the better policy? We cannot, of course, do as much as Australia, but we can make sure what we do will tend in the same direction, and that is what the Iteform policy aims at doing. It is an enliglited policy which gives us a visible and tangible interest in naval defence, and .substantially increases the strength and resources of the Empire. Sir Joseph Ward’s policy is merely a penny-iii-the-slnt policy which takes no account of the possible dishonesty of the collector who may convert the penny i $ wrong uses.