BRITAIN AND GERMANY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2755, 9 March 1910, Page 5

BRITAIN AND GERMANY.

GERMAN SOCIALIST SPEAKS UP FOR BRITAIN. United Press Association —Copyright (Received March 8, 10.45 p.m.) BERLIN, March 8. During the course of a navy debate in the Reichstag, ' Herr Ledebour, a Socialist, charged Count Bulow and Admiral Tierpitz with quibbling in regard to England’s attempts to promote the limitation of armaments. He declared that England bad made frequent, informal suggestions. Admiral Tierpitz, in reply, read Her r von Schven’s statement in the “Times” of 24th March, 1909, to the effect that the English avoided a formal proposal. “THE REAL FACTS.” The London “Times” of January 10, published Irani its Berlin correspondent some criticisms of a letter from Lord Weardale which appeared m the .“Times” of January 6th. Lord Weaidale gave what he called “the real facts” about German shipbuilding “in order to prevent the dissemination oi malignant fables.” He said that he had received his information from the president of the German Group and ilrom the general secretary of the Interparliamentary Union. Professor Eiekhoff was represented as saying that the increase in the German Naval Estimates of 1910 was solely due to the established naval programme of 1900. Similarly Dr Lirige was represented as speaking of this increase as “the normal one authorised by Ihe German Navy Act of 1900.” The correspondent remarks that these statements are “in any case nonsense,'’ because the annual increases are not established by the Act of 1900, and that they are '“grossly misleading,” because the scheme of probable expenditure which was contemplated in 1900 has been revised by subsequent legislation, and has in fact been increased almost out of recognition. The truth, the. correspondent explains, is as follows. The German Navy Act of 1900 does not fix expenditure for ten or for any other number v>f years ahead. It provides that the Necessary funds, for carrying out the ■law are to be set down year by year in the Estimates. A Resolution of the Reichstag in 1900 determined what proportion—a very different thing from amount —of naval expenditure was to be regarded as .ordinary expenditure, nnd the remainder was to be met out of i oan The Act was revised in 1906, nnd again in-1908. According to the provisional calculation of 1906, the Estimates for 1909 and 1.910 combined •were to show an increase of 8,000,000 marks. Now that the Estimate for 1910 has appeared, however, it is found actually to provide, in combination with the 1909 Estimate, for an increase of 35,300,000 marks. It is quite wrong, therefore, to speak of the increase in this Estimate as having been settled 'ten years ago. A programme of construction indeed is determined on m advance, but the expenditure is a matter of secondary consideration. The .amount of the Bill is announced year Jiy year as it falls due. The German Navv Laws are thus absolutely elastic , n all financial respects. Could one ,have a better proof of the determination of Germany?