BRITAIN’S NAVAL POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20318, 28 January 1928, Page 11

BRITAIN’S NAVAL POLICY.

PREJUDICE IN AMERICA. ULTERIOR DESIGNS SUSPECTED SIR ROBERT HORNE’S EXPLANATION, (Pres» Association—Bj Telegraph—Copyright.) MELBOURNE, January 27. Sir Robert Horne, referring to naval armaments at the Overseas Club, said that last year in the United States the idea was very prevalent that, because Britain failed to come to an agreement with that nation on the question of the number of cruisers to be built, she had some ulterior descign. The controversy between Britain and the United States was over the number of cruisers each should have. America wanted a certain member of 10,000-ton cruisers, and wished to limit the number of cruisers which Britain required. Britain could not accept their figure, and insisted that she required a much greater number of cruisers than had been stipulated. Britain had no aggressjve intention at all. All she asked was that she should have the number of cruisers she required in accordance with the distance between the sections of the Empire, Sir Robert Horne added : “ America is self-contained, and has only one or two near posssessions, so she requires fewer ships than Britain, whose possessions are scattered through the seas. Further, America requires a large cruiser because it has to steam a greater distance to refuel, whereas the Empire possesses a large number of fueling stations throughout the world. Her cruisers could operate with a much smaller store of fuel, but we require far more of them than America does. We should have been failing in our duty to those portions of the Empire, here, and overseas, if we had failed to maintain the position that nothing less than our absolute necessities should be agreed to. Britain is bound to recognise her own necessities and the needs of the great communities which depend on the defence she affords, and we did nothing less than our duty in maintaining that position.” "AN IDIOTIC PROPHECY.” WASHINGTON, January 26. Representative M'Clintic, addressing the House, described Admiral Plunkett’s alleged war talk as “ an idiotic, asinine outburst. ’* He declared that the admirals prophecy of war with Britain had the effect of curtailing and destroying trade relations instead of increasing commerce with friendly nations.—A. and N.Z. Cable.