The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1928. NAVIES AND POLITICS.

Evening Star, Issue 19765, 16 January 1928, Page 6

The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1928. NAVIES AND POLITICS.

Wi: are hearing a great deal in these da3'S about America’s navy and its needs. As if a live-years programme, which was tho subject of discussion recently, was not looking far enough ahead, tho Naval Affairs Committee of the House of .'Representatives has been considering the requirements of a further twenty-years’ programme. The Naval Secretary, Mr Wilbur, has always boon keener for a big navy than Mr Cooiulgo, and Mr Wilbur's views are likely to be modest as compared with those of other loss responsible politicians. We shall hoar much more of tho subject, probably, in tho next few weeks, for a very simple reason. It is the year of the Presidential election in America. Tho Democratic National Convention for the nomination of candidates will be held in June; that of the Republicans takes place about the same time; and from thence on the air will ho a babel of resounding election cries. Air Wilbur has denied that his naval programme is designed to compete with Britain. But a naval programme which does not compete with Britain is sure to be denounced vociferously by all tho politicians—and they aro unlikely to be few in number —who feel hopes of increasing their popularity by playing on the prejudices of those electors who have no love for Great Britain, and who probably consider it a humiliation that America should be second in anything. “Twisting tho lion’s tail” has been found to be, even in these days, the most profitable political business by Mr “Bill” Thompson, of Chicago, and he is not likely to be alone in bis exploiting of such tactics. Mr Wilbur is convinced that “ smart-looking modern cruisers create a prestige that aids merchants and manufacturers in tho building up of trade abroad,” and that is probably true in tho present state of the world. While he disclaims tho idea! of a competitive navy, which this gospel might support rather than discourage, since trade certainly is competitive, he is concerned that America should have a “ first-class ” one, and some critics in' his own country want to know, naturally, what ho means by that term. Fears have been provoked that his new programme can only bo accepted as a challenge to Great Britain’s supremacy at sea, a new bid for parity and something more than parity. The New York 1 World ’ and ‘Times’ have not disguised their anxiety about the issue. But there will ho no new race in naval building. Parity for the American Navy was conceded by Great Britain, in principle at least, at tho Washington Conference. Tho First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr Bridgemau, has since stated that no objection will be made to the American claim in that respect. If America wants a bigger navy than Great Britain’s sho has the money to build it—though trade can easily be fostered by much cheaper ways—and no one in Great Britain will be disposed to enter into competition with her. The most significant indication of Britain’s policy was given by Mr Bridgeman a few weeks ago when he announced that only one new cruiser would bo built this year, instead of three, as planned. So far as could bo judged by Press comment, American opinion, on the whole, was most favorably impressed by that moderation, though there were journals in which it was described as simply a “bluff,’ meant to influence Congress against entering bn a vigorous programme of construction. The real issue for most American politicians at this moment, it is to bo gathered, is not naval construction, but the effect of professions which may bo made now on the coming electoral contest. Those who call for the biggest navy would be much helped in their attempts to stir up racial prejudices if resentment should be caused in Great Britain by their demands, and the nomination of a Republican candidate for the presidency who could be described as “ internationally-minded ” —like Mr Hughes, Mr Hoover, or General Dawes —might then he made a matter of extreme difficulty. But even Mr Wilbur’s “ non-competitivo ” programme is evidently being eyed askance by those Americans who do not view America’s wealth as a reason for spending it on what she does not need. There appear to be good grounds for the belief that Congress will not commit tho country to an unrestricted building programme.