U.S.A’s BIGGER NAVY

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 January 1928, Page 7

U.S.A’s BIGGER NAVY

WHAT IS THE OBJECT ? MR. WILBUR QUESTIONED (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.) WASHINGTON, January 12. Mr [Wilbur emphatically denied the charges that the naval programme was designed to compete with Britain. The proposed twenty years’ building replacement programme, he said, would cost 2260. million dollars, and at the end of this twenty years’ programme, the Navy should embark on another twenty-year programme to keep the Navy up to the required strength, indicating a basic expenditure of 168 million dollars annually for twenty years. The expenditure for th<? proposed five-year programme in reality would be spread - over eight years, as follows:—55,200,000 dollars in 1929, 110,400,000 in 1930, 141,100,000 in 1931, 141,500,000 in 1932, 139 millions in 1933, 93 millions in 1934, 46,800,000 in 1935 and 10,400,000 in 1936. Representative Vinson pointed out that the proposed five-year programme is the largest in dollars and cents ever submited to Congress. Mr Wilbur replied, “Yes” to re- , peated questions, whether he meant that the United States did not have a first-class navy. The Secretary indicated that the unit cost in his first year estimate, was roughly: For aeroplane carriers, nineteen million dollars; light cruisers, seventeen million; and destroyers and submarines, five millions each. The Secretary declared emphatically that the proposed five-year programme “i-s not for a paper navy,” but the Naval Department wants ships actually built. ’ . ■

PRESS OPPOSITION. NEW YORK, January 12. With a cartoon showing Uncle Sam and John Bull carrying an overgrown individual, dangling a sable and beating a drum, entitled, “Big navy jingo,” the “New York. World” prints a lengthy leader warning the American Government concerning Mr. Wilbur's proposals. The paper says: “It is idle —it is worse than idle —it is profoundly misleading not to recognise fully that this programme challenges in an unmistakable fashion, the ancient prerogatives of British sea power, and to challenge the British command of the seas is to touch thp nerve centre of world affairs. This is the most momentous question in the whole realm of statesmanship. The problem is funda mentally •political, and to leave it to admirals on both sides of the Atlantic can only lead to disaster.” The “New York Times” says: “It is to bp regretted that the United States and Britain could not get together, at Geneva. Competition in cruiser building looms ahead, despite the protestations of Mr. Wilbur, but he is right when,he says that both President Coolidge and Congress are opposed to com.petitive building. There is reason to believe that Congress will not commit the . country to an unrestricted building programme.” PRESIDENT CRITICISED. WASHINGTON, January 13, The House Naval Affairs Committee criticised President Coolidge’s failure to set a definite time limit for the completion of the building programme. Members of the Committee expressed the fear that such failure would be liable to cause future conflict with the President. Meantime, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Air Robinson) appeared before the Committee and explained the discrepancy between Mr Wilbur’s first estimate of a 3360 million dollars programme and the corrected figure of 2280 millions, which Mr Wilbur later issued. Air Robinson revealed that the Naval General Board had first drafted the programme calling for the first figure. This programme included battleships and additional destroyers, but was discarded because it was seen to be unnecessary to start battleship and destroyer replacements at the present time. PROPOSED PEACE PACT. EXCHANGE of notes. NEW YORK, January 12. The “New York Herald’s” Washington correspondent says that Air Kellogg asked France to-day to accept Al. Briand’s original proposal for the outlawry of war, with the inclusion of Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan. He explained that France’s aggressive war proposal was extraneous to the present discussion. t. In a Note sent to Al. Claudel, the original text of Al. Briand’s proposal was made public, and revealed that Al. Briand requested ‘h treaty of' the renunciation of war as an intrument of national policy. Recent despatches from Paris giving the official view of the Foreign Office expressed displeasure over the fact that the United States wanted to Jo this very thing. Air Kellogg, noting this discrepancy, said, ‘‘l earnestly hope this is of no particular significance, and that it may not be taken as an indication that the Government of France will find itself unable to join with’ the Government of the United States.” # DECLARATION AGAINST WAR. PARTS, January 13. A. comumnication from Air Kellogg, in a reply to'AI. Briand, suggests that the principal Powers should participate in preparation of a draft declaration against war. ■ Political circles deduce that the whole negotiations are slipping out of Al. Briand’s control, and French diplomatic circles will most likely find solace in a Franco-American Arbitration Treaty, to- which all efforts are now directed.