AMERICAN NAVY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 14 January 1928, Page 7

AMERICAN NAVY

BUILDING PLANS (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) (Australian & N.Z. Cable Association) WASHINGTON, 12th January. The American naval plans on a proposed twenty-year building replacement programme, said Mr Wilbur, Secretary for the Navy, would cost 3,360,000,000 dollars, and at the end of this twentyyear programme the navy should embark on another twenty-year programme' to keep the navy up to the required strength, indicating a basic expenditure of 168,000,000 dollars annually for twenty years. He said that the expenditure- for the proposed five-year programme in reality would be spread over eight years, as follows:—55,200,000 dollars in 1929; 11,400,000 in 1930; 141,100,000 in 1931; 141,500,000 in 1932; 139,000,000 in 1933; 93,000,000 in 1934; 46,800,000 in 1933 k; 10,400,000 in 1936. Representative Vinson, during the hearing before the Naval Affairs Committee, pointed out that the proposed five-year programme was the largest in dollars and cents ever submitted to Con'greSS. rr, Mr Wilbur replied "Yes." To repeated questions whether he meant that the United States now did not have a firstclass navy, the Secretary indicated that the unit'cost in his five -.y ear ,- e^jm^e . was roughlv : Airplane carriers 19,000,000 dollars each; light cruisers 17,000,000 each ; destroyer leaders and submarines 5 000,000 each. The Secretary declared emphatically that the proposed five-year programme was not for a "paper navy, but that the Naval Department wants all ships actually built. A CHALLENGE TO BRITAIN NEW YORK, 12th January. With a cartoon showing Uncle, Sam and John Bull carrying ah overgrown individual dangling a sabre 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 nn unmistakeable fashion the ancient prerogatives of British sea power, and to challenge British command of the seas is to touch the. nerve centre of world affairs'. This is the most momentous question in the whole realm of statesmanship. The problem is fundamentally political and to leave it to admirals, one on each side of the Atlantic, can only lead to disaster." The'"New York Times" says: "It is to be 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 both President Cool idge and Congress are opposed to competitive building. There is reason to believe Congress will nut commit the country to an unrestricted building programme." CRITICISM OF PRESIDENT (Received 14th. January, 11.40 a.m.) WASHINGTON, ioth January. 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 flint such failure would be liable to cause a future conflict with the President. Meantime the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Mr 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, wliich Mr Wilbur later issued. Mr Robinson revealed that the Naval General Board had first drafted a programme calling for the first figures. This programme included battleships and additional destroyers, but was disregarded because it was seen to be unnecessary to start battleship and destroyer replacements at the pwsent time.