THE AMERICAN NAVY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20282, 15 December 1927, Page 12

THE AMERICAN NAVY

FIVE-YEAR PROGRAMME. NOT YET FINALLY APPROVED. MODIFICATION EXPECTED. (Frest Association—By telegraph— Copyright ) NEW YORK, December 13. (Received Dec. 14, at 9.15 p.m.) The Washington correspondent of The Times says that President Coolidge stated that he not yet finally approved of the naval programme. This was received with the utmost surprise by those members of the Congress who gained the distinct impression that the draft programme shown to them yesterday represented the President’s views. It is understood that the programme was modified to-day, as the result of protests by members of Congress against such heavy naval expenditures and the reported refusal of President Coolidge to approve of the authorisation of four battleships. The modifications would eliminate the latter and slightly reduce the estimated cost of the airplane carrier's, but as agreed upon to-day and sent to the Budget Bureau for approval the programme contemplates final expenditures of approximately 1,000,000,000 dollars for five years’ building, the cost of which will be distributed over nine years. Thin programme provides that construction shall all be started within five years and completed within nine years, and is, moreover, only part of a 20-year scheme, the details of which are closely guarded and designed for replacements and such additions to the fleet as naval developments and national policy require. The publication of the details of the 1,000,000,000d0l scheme not only aroused immediate antagonism among so-called-pacifists, but impressed big navy men as involving the expenditure of too much money in so short a period. Mr" Butler, commenting on the battleship feature, said : “ How can we tell now that the United States and Britain will not agree by 1932 that 14 battleships will be sufficient instead of the 18 provided for in the present treaty?” Mr French, chairman of the Naval Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, expressed the view that the programme “ is out of line with the T>y es ?? t and prospective needs of the navy. He was doubtful whether Congress would make the appropriations for cruiser construction in addition to the eight 10,000ton cruisers now under way. The New York Times, in an editorial, deprecates the likelihood of approval by the General Baird on the naval programme, and says it is the intention of the Administration to include a clause providing that in the case of agreement by treaty to reduce naval armaments, the new ships voted need not be constructed. The President, by this means, in the event of another naval conference being summoned, would have in his hands material with which to bargain. This was not the case at Genova last spring. The American delegates asked the other nations to make sacrifices, but they had only trifling ones of their own to offer. Even with the modest building programme approved by Congress, the President would next time be in a better position to negotiate. The New York World says: ‘ On e may well ask what new threat to the security of the nation explains or justifies the greatest of war programmes in time of peace? Th e programme is a repudiation of President Coolidgo’s own position, a blow to economy, and defeat for moderation. It is a victory for dogma. It is the irony of President Coolidge s attempt to help to disarm the world that a larger expenditure for ships is now recommended than in any other administration. The Chicago Tribune says the answer is that “ the United States will build accordin? to its judgment of its needs. A. and N.Z. Cable. ,