Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1928. AMERICA'S NAVY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 83, 18 January 1928, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1928. AMERICA'S NAVY.

The naval programme submitted to the House of Representatives Naval Affairs Committee by the United States Secretary for the Navy is not likely to bring comfort to those who see in the building up of great armies and navies the gravest menace that can threaten the world's peace. Mr Wilbur has now informed Congress that the five years' programme which he recently recommended, and which was to cost £160,000,000, is to be regarded "only as a start." What the naval experts really want, it seems, is "an additional twenty years' programme of building and replacements," the total cost apparently to reach, a figure which Mr Wilbur has refrained from stating. Mr Wilbur reiterates that the United States does not intend to enter into competition with any other Power, the programme outlined being based on the legitimate requirements of the country. The Naval Board apparently considers that a navy to be "first-class" must be equal to that of Britain. If the latter nation has need for so many cruisers, the United States must have them as well. But the "need " exists) only in the imagination of the Americans, and is without basis in fact. Britain has possessions and dependencies all over the globe, in every ocean, and these need protection. America has the Philippines, Hawaii, a few small islands in the West Indies, Tutuila, in the Samoan Group, and the Panama Canal to guard. Britain has about double the American tonnage of commercial shipping to protect. The British Isles are absolutely dependent upon overseas supplies for a very large proportion of the food required for the people and for raw materials for their industries, while America is comparatively self-contained in these respects. If Britain had not a powerful navy it would be possible for enemies to blockade her coasts, cut off her food supplies, and starve the country into submission in a short time. America runs no such risk. If it were possible to setup an effective blockade of her coasts —which it is not—it would make little difference to the comfort of the American people. They would still have plenty of food and their industries would carry on almost as usual. As an additional reason for the maintenance of a large navy Mr Wilbur said that smart-looking modern cruisers created a prestige that aided merchants and manufacturers in building up trade abroad, and that the measure of commercial success was influenced in no small degree bv the prestige they created and fostered. America's foreign trade might be extended by smart trading vessels carrying cargo both ways, instead of one way only, without "smart-look-ing cruisers" accompanying them to "create a prestige." Her trading vessels are ready enough to bring cargoes to New Zealand, but they do not want any New Zealancf produce in exchange, and the smartest cruiser afloat would not help their' trade in these waters. There is no escape from the conclusion, admirably expressed by one of the ablest of American publicists, Mr Frank Simonds, that the American "big navy" programme is not a question of national security, but of "national pride." How often hnvv the leading statesmen of America appealed to the world in

recent years to reduce the danger of war by "limitin.o- armaments?" To-day Mr Wilbur tells us that if his twenty years' programme is carried out, "the danger of war would be greatly minimised." It would be disastrous if the inconsistency should incline other Powers to embark upon building programmes that would accelerate instead of curb the race for armaments.