Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, JANUARY l6, 1928 CONFLICTING POLICIES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 16 January 1928, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1928 CONFLICTING POLICIES

ON Saturday last we published two cablegrams from the United States, dated the. 12th inst., which were profoundly confusing. The one se.t forth the endeavours of Mr Kellogg, President Coolidgo’s Secretary of State, to bring about an arrangement with France, whereby that country and the U.S.A. should agreo to renounce war in favour of arbitration. The other set forth with an exactness which was remarkable the proposals of Mr Wilbur, President Coolidgo’s Secretary of the Navy, for spending £672,000,000 in 20 years tor the purpose of increasing the battle fleets of the United Slates. While the one cablegram said “That Mr Kellogg asked Franpn to-day to accept M. Briand’s

original proposal of' outlawry of war, with the inclusion of Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan," tho other cablegram represented Mr Wilbur as saying that the proposed naval building programme of tho United States stretching over 20, years “would cost 3,360 million dollars” —or approximately 672 million pounds sterling—“and at tho end of this twenty, year programmo the Navy should embark on another twenty-year programme to keep tho Navy up to the required strength, indicating a basic expenditure of 163 million dollars"—or approximately £33,600,000 “annually for twenty years.”

We have before us, as we write, a printed table, showing Britain’s expenditure on her Navy during tho crucial years 1901-1914, when'she was preparing to meet the German menace. In no one venr did tier expenditure on new ships exceed 15 millions sterling, and in seven separate years that expenditure fell below 10 millions sterling. Yet Mr Wilbur asks for authority to spend, in new construction, upwards of 33 millions sterling annually, over a period of twenty years ! What is his object? What need have the U.S.A. for creating such a fleet? What is tho meaning of their Government talking about, outlawing war, and simultaneously asking, Congress to sanction expenditure in such warlike preparations as Mr* Wilbur s naval building programme indicates ? When* wo consider tho divergent policies of Mr Wilbur, Secretary of the Navy,-and of Mr Kellogg, Secretary, of •State, wo must remember that both policies are Mr Coolidge’s, and that their incompatibility’ must he 'placed at tho "President's door, and not at that of his Secretary. Whatever there is of goodness and rightness in the policy which Mr Kellogg is trying to carry through with France, will, if . that policy succeeds, he credited to Mr Coolidge; and whatever is vicious and bad in Mr W ilfcur’s naval proposals must he debited to Mr- Coolidge. The President is responsible for both policies; ho must take the responsibility’ for. them, and must answer for them to his compatriots and the world. This necessarily raises questions as to the objects which Mr Coolidgo has in view, when ho promulgates such divergent and incompatible policies sa thosq voiced bv Mr Kellogg and Mr Wilbur. Does he really imagine that his country needs a , Navy as large as that envisaged by Air Wilbur? If so, where is tho Power which monaces the United Slates?' Britain has- not created any such.-menace, neither has Japan, and certainly the States have nothing to fear from France or Italy. Then why does tho U.S. Government wish to incur such enormous expenditure on her naval •Units? If there is no fundamental reason foT such expenditure, then it is not merely foolish, hut positively wicked, since the creation of- such a gigantic Navy would do more than anything else to promoto naval rivalry 7 —a thing which tlie Washington Treaty was devised to prevent —and to create distrust among the nations.

It would have been : bail enough for the U.S. -Government to have put forward Mr Wilburs warlike proposals;, but when it simultaneously prompts Mr Kellogg’s proposals for denouncing war, it is guilty of inconsistency which very closely resembles insincerity. The world could understand a president who., is a man of war. It could understand a President who is a man of peace. But a President, both a man of peace and a man of war, it would indubitably consider to be a lunatic or the world s champion hypocrite.