The Waikato Times With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 1928. NAVAL LIMITATIONS.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17367, 31 March 1928, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 1928. NAVAL LIMITATIONS.

Cable advices from the United States, referring to the limitation of naval armaments, do not create any idea of good feeling between the two countries. Lord Cushendun, the British delegate at Geneva, lias handed to Mr Hugh Gibson, the United States delegate, a proposal for a further limitation in battleships. It would seem to be a harmless proceeding, which the United States could hardly resent even if they could not sec their way to adopt it. The officials at Washington are, however, in a very suspicious frame of mind. They are puzzled to know why a copy of the proposals was handed to the other naval Powers, and think it is a preliminary to the Naval Conference to be held in 1931. Meanwhile the Washington newspapers are denouncing the action of Britain in making proposals, and consider it to be an attempt to limit the American building of battleships, after refusing the proposals made by the United States to limit auxiliary vessels. It leads to considerable uneasiness at what may take place in 1931, for discussions respecting limitation of navies seem to bring out a good deal of latent animosity to Britain- So far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, it seems that the United States wish for battleships and Britain wishes for cruisers. Would it not be as well if each nation built what they considered to be necessary without consulting the other. Such consultation seems to create ill-feeling, for which there are no definite grounds of any kind. We are quite unable to understand the desire of the United States to build more battleships, but still if they think them necessary they had better build them. It is very significant that some naval authorities are beginning to doubt the value of battleships. They carry very heavy armament, hut are subject to so many dangers from aircraft, from submarines and from torpedoes that they can seldom bring their powers to bear, and Lord Fisher and Sir Percy Scott are quoted as thinking that sp6ed is of greater importance than weight of guns. The naval question is likely to be a prominent matter in the Presidential election which is to be held this year. The anxiety for a large navy is confined to the departments and to the

Senate, and is not shared by the country generally, though we must remember that there are sections of the population opposed to Britain and ready to maintain that the British Navy is intended for domination. The feeling in the Senate in favour of a big navy is hard to understand, but to an outsider it seems connected with the American Constitution, which places very great powers in the Senate without giving equal responsibility. The President, aided by his Cabinet, carries out executive action, and the Senate is confined to criticism, hut no Treaty is valid until passed by the Senate, and very few are ever passed. The United SUttes has become a World Power, in some respects the largest of the Powers, yet it is difficult for her to make an agreement with any other Power because there is so little chance of having it ratified. Power without responsibility is always a danger, and that is the situation of tlic Senate, and it can only be altered slowly. Senators arc elected for six years and, moreover, have usually a strong hold on their constituencies, confirmed by a long exercise of patronage. Tlicj may modify their desire for a large navy in response to public opinion, but they arc quite as likely to maintain their opinion and have their way. The anxiety of the Naval department to build big ships is more easily understood. .'lt is the nature of officials to magnify their functions, and‘we arc well enough accustomed to it here. There will of course be some encouragement from the steel interests, but (hat is what is to be expected in every country. Meanwhile, from such information as reaches us, it seems that the people of the United States arc very far from desiring any large expenditure on the navy. They are gcnuinely«anxious for peace, and are quite unable to see what dangers are threatening them and calling for a large navy. Still, it is by no means certain that their wishes will prevail. The United States is called a democratic country, but the response of the Government to the will of the people is much slower and less complete there than in Britain. Party ties are very strong, and it is seldom a man votes otherwise than for those he has always supported, even if at any time he has come to disagree with their proposals. Wc must remember, too, that the proportion of illiterates —voters who cannot read or can only read with difficulty—is large, and the votes of such people can be i manipulated. The depression that has overtaken trade in the United States is a factor making for economy in naval expenditure, and we must hope that it will have its effect. Economy in armaments is almost the only form of economy practicable. Money spent on new ships beyond a certain minimum is sheer waste. There is no enemy in sight. The people in America who suspect Britain of sinister designs cannot go to war without a cause, and there is no cause to be lound. Britain has shown that she is willing to economise, possibly with a view to the approaching election. There is a real possibilily of some improvement both in* international arrangements and in naval expenditure if the people in the United Slates can manage 'to control their politicians and their departments.