COMMONWEALTH POLITICS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2465, 1 April 1909, Page 5

COMMONWEALTH POLITICS

THE PREMIER’S VIEWS. A FLEET OF DESTROYERS. United Press Association —Copyright. SYDNEY, March ■3l. In the course of his speech at Gympie,.. Mr. Fisher declared that the Dreadnought gift scheme was not policy at all. The Government could not have justified itself if it had yielded to popular clamor, because he believed it was on wrong lines. A compulsory training scheme was proposed for cadets, to commence at ten years of age, and go on till they were 21 years of age. The scheme would entail an initial outlay of £580,000. The cost in the first ..year would be £1,200,000, and would reach the minimum of XT,407,000 in the sixth year. The naval scheme proposes,, in addition to the three destroyers already ordered, four ocean destroyers, and 16 ■of the river class of destroyers. Mr. Fisher foreshadowed a Commonwealth note issue and the minting of silver coinage, which together would produce a revenue of £190,000; also an amendment of the constitution as regards the new protection. The Federal Government would not go on the money market on any condition whatever until settlement was reached over the State debts question. He considered the appointment of a High Commissioner a necessity. Mr. Fislier estimated that- naval construction would cost £650,000 in the first year. £BBO,OOO in the second year, and £734,000 in the third. The maintenance would be £168,000 for the first year, and £236,000 in the next year. NEWSPAPER CRITICISM. MR. FISHER’S MISTAKES EXPOSED, SYDNEY, March 31. The “Herald” declares: “Mr. Fisher is entirely astray on the naval defence question. It merely commits Australia to an enormous expense for construction and maintenance without even gaining local immunity. At the same time he fails most shamefully to play a part in the Empire defence which events so loudly call us. to undertake. He strangely misreads the signs of the times if he thinks now is an appropriate time to appeal to purely local patriotism. His plain duty was to stand by the Empire, and he must be left under no illusion that he Ls helping the Empire with a destroyer fleet.” The “Telegraph” points out that destroyers are useless unless attached to a deep sea squadron. “Our clear interest and manifest duty,” the “Telegraph” states, “is to strengthen the fleet which, while it holds the seas, makes invasion impossible.' Any defence scheme ignoring that is a fiaudnlont delusion, and just there was where the incurably weak point of Mr. Fisher’s policy protrudes.”