AMERICAN NAVY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 101, 27 January 1928, Page 9

AMERICAN NAVY

FIVE-YEAR BUILDING DRO- - NEEDED TO PROTECT COMMERCE SAYS ADMIRAL McVEY BY Telegraph.—press association. Copyright (Rec. January 26, 8.55 p.m.) Washing®!!, January 25.• Rear-Admiral McVey, Budget officer of the Navy Department, informed the House of Representatives Naval Affairs Committee that the five-year building programme is just as important to the country as farm relief, flood control, or any other problem involving large sums of money. He said that the United States had large seaborne commerce, which must be adequately protected, as if it is endangered it is most certain to disturb internal conditions and might, extend to a panic. Admiral McVey ;pointed out'that the Navy Department would have presented the building programme to Congress, irrespective of the outcome of the Geneva conference. On being questioned, he was unable to explain why the navy now thought it needed forty-three cruisers, whereas in 1925 it was represented that anywhere from twenty-one to thirty ships of this type were all that the navy required. BRITAIN’S MEMORANDUM ’ \ ON SECURITY DISAPPOINTING TO VISCOUNT CECIL ON ARBITRATION ISSUE London, January 25. Declaring the Government’s memorandum on security most disappointing regarding arbitration, Viscount Cecil says that the refusal of all-in arbitration could not be due to the Government’s thinking arbitration advisable with good people, but wrong with the bad. The only other possible conclusion was that the Government preferred to arbitrate than quarrel with powerful countries, and this was not a very high-minded attitude. “I do not know the ground on which the Government argues that the people will not support genera! arbitration. Would the Government subject the question to a free vote of the House of Commons or nsk the League to remove such doubts ? Britain’s signature to all-embracing arbitration would give the world a lead.” Persistence in the present attitude, Viscount Cecil said, was tanla mount to the guilt of maintaining tliat war was a legitimate method of settling disputes.—“ The Times.”