New-York tribune., 1905-02-05
CANADA AND NAVAL DEFENCE.

The recent discussion in the English press as
to the relations of the colonies to imperial de
fence has reminded the world that Australia
does at present contribute small sum to that
purpose though only about One-tenth or less
Of the amount English writer's estimate that her
contribution should be. Australia, therefore, OBJ
jects to being classed with Canada as not con-
tributing to the imperial navy, though, if she
desires substantial credit she must give on a
scale that will at least not leave her contri-
button a negligible quantity in the preparation
Of imperial naval budgets AS to the proposed
contribution by Canada 0f twelve fifteen mill
ion dollars, Canadian journals until recently
dismissed the proposition alrily on the ground
that it would be "but a drop In the bucket"
not worth talking about between friends.
This view, however, has undergone a notable
change since the PRONUNCIATION of the British
Admiralty'S reorganization plans In that new
scheme Halifax, Esquimalt and Jamaica are
practically to be abandoned; or if those sta
tionS in which Canada is directly concerned are
to be maintained they will hereafter be kept
up at Canadas expense. For some time it has
been a question whether these stations, from
the point OF view of imperial defence, were suf-
fciently important to justify their mainten-
ance Recent doings in the Far East we'll
as changed diplomatic relations with France
and the United States, have apparently con-
vinced the board that the practical abandon
ment of Canadian naval stations or at least the
intrusting of them to Canada herself, would be
a wise as well economical measure. "The
Spectator" of London, in its recent comments
ON Mr.. Roots definition of the Monroe Doc
trlne, says that definition is an added protec-
ton to Canada Certainly at no time since
the PRONUNCIATION of the Monroe Doctrine would
America have regarded encroachment by any
European power upon Canada as other than an
'.unfriendy act'' to the United States More
over, relations between America and Great Brit
ain have never been more harmonious than at
present.
Under these circumstances the British Board
of Admiralty could not have found Il more
suitable time for trial of it's new naval pol
icy of mobile fleets and flying bases. The les
son OF Port Arthur teaches that such forts as
that at Esquimalt are of little use, even as a
refuge for defeated squadron, though proba-
bly, still worth the expense of maintenance.
1t is a compliment to the United States, there
FORE that Great Britain feels it is no longer
necessary to spend millions on this side of the
Atlantic in coast defence the maintenance
of naval stations. Canada is as safe as Mexico
without a navy. and for similar reasons. New
ertheless. it is not improbable that Great Brit
ain has determined that the present is salta-
bic time to encourage Canada to rely more upon
herself. However negligible Halifax and Es-
quimalt may at present be In scheme OF Inn
perial defence, 1t is not conceivable that Can
ada will take the same complacent view OF
the matter She win undoubtedly set TO work
TO find ways and means to maintain her chief
defences upon the two oceans, which, proba-
bly,, is just what the shrewd Admiralty Board
foresaw when II announced its policy of with
drawaL There are more ways than one Of So