Newspaper Page Text
Disarmament and Peace Concluded from page 1 these burdens until it is demonstrated beyond perad enture that no understanding can be had and that therefore we are compelled to build as a matter of ecurity and safety. Let me say, too, and particularly to those who are ery technical with reference to the disarmament idea and proceeding, that if we do not demonstrate to the American people that we have endeavored in good faith to secure a partial disarmament or complete disarma ment, and that we have failed, and that therefore there i no alternative left except, as a matter of security, to build a greater navy, they will send a Congress here which will cut the appropriations regardless of whether we have a contract or not. Of course, there are two ways to defeat disar mament. One is to oppose disarmament and present the argu ments against it. There are those who sincerely be lieve that we cannot afford to disarm, even under an agreement, and with them I have no quarrel, although I differ with them. They have their own reasons and they act upon them. There are others who are un willing to say that they are opposed to disarmament ; they are perfectly willing to pay lip service to dis armament, but they conjure up ail conceivable methods for delay, which is another way of killing the program. There is another proposition connected with the suspension of the building program, and that is the :ion that possibly in the near future we may arrive at some understanding with Great Britain and Japan with reference to the building program of the future. 1 want above all things to see an agreement with Japan and England which will enable us to cut down our burdensome expenses. If that cannot be had, then I want to see the most efficient navy possible for the money which we put into it. Both these propositions can be carried along together, and both should have prompt attention and prompt action. I am not one of those who believe in a weak navy or a small navy, unless our security can be arranged through undertakings or agreements which make us equally safe. I presume everyone, however, whether he is for a large navy or a small navy, would like to know whether the navy is to comply with the standards which the best investigation and thought declare to be an efficient navy. We certainlv do not desire to build to the extent of $640,000,000 and then find ourselves in 1925 with an obsolete navy. I am informed that the agricultural appropriation bill carries altogether $33,000,000. That il $7,000,000 less than the cost of one of these pos siblv obsolete battleships, of which there are to be sixteen, costing about $40,000,000 apiece now. We should know as definitely as it can be known before we continue this program, that it will bring us an efficient navy. Some time ago I offered a resolution which had for its purpose the bringing together of the three great navy-building nations, with a view of securing, if pos sible, an understanding by which the building pro grams might be reduced. There seems to be an opinion in some quarters that that matter ought to be delayed for a time. If it should be delayed, then it seems to me extremely important that we know something of the condition of our building program and as to whether or not it is along the lines which will make for efficiency in case wc should ever be called upon to make use of the navy. Some of the great naval experts of the world now contend that what is known as the capital ship, or the battleship, will be practically use less in future naval war fare. Of course, I do not assume to pass an opinion on any such question, but it does seem to me that a lay man may feel keenly in terested in knowing what the ultimate judg ment of wthe experts is to be upon this subject. It is conceded that Wt are building the most expensive kind of navy which we could posibly build. The question is. is this expensive navy also an efficient navy? Unless ultimately we can arrange, through agree ment, to curtail the ex penses of naval arma ments, we shall want a thoroughly modern navy. I have never sug gested doing away with capital ships. That is a subject for investigation. Some great authoriti do believe that they ought to be abandoned. I have not suggested it ; but I believe it is the part of wisdom for us to stop our building pro gram until we can know what we are spending this money for, and whether we should put more money in capital ships or less, more money in submarines or less, and how we should round out and make a whole, modern, effective fighting navy. I am frank to say Thia pile of none might topped oo the atajeooacb tourney batweeo uurew vKtion, that I do not think we have given sufficient considera tion to this question. In saying that I am not criti cizing those who have studied it in the Navy Depart ment, but as a general proposition it has not been suf ficiently considered by the people of this country. If it should transpire that the most expensive navy is also the most inefficient navy, it would constitute a double crime upon the part of Congress to proceed with the program. It would not only be an offense against the taxpayers of the country, but it would be a crime against the people of the country in purporting to give them security which it does not give. I desire, therefore, first to make every' possible ef fort by agreement to reduce and cut out the com- rtitive naval building program of the great powers, would like to hear, both from Great Britain and Japan, about this reduction. If that cannot be done, I desire to have a navy that is in every sense a modern navy and an efficient navy. What we possess in the way of a navy must be the navy of the last best thought in the world. I have not advocated that the United States shall disarm unless she can have an agreement with other naval powers to disarm. I am not proposing that the United States shall build an inefficient navy. What I am trying to get is the best minds of the country upon the question of what constitutes an efficient navy. Congress is responsible for the expenditure of vast sums of money for the national defense, and it should have the best information possible as to whether they are being wisely expended. The information with reference to the subject in this country is very meager. I happen to know that there are men in the navy who believe that the capital ship will no longer be service able in modern warfare, but they do not feel exactly free to give that information under present condi tions, unless they are called upon to do so. The English cabinet have taken up this question, and they are dealing with it with their usual foresight and vigilance. They have decided with the hearty concurrence of the admiralty that the committee of imperial defense shall "institute at once an exhaustive investigation into the whole question of naval strength as affected by the latest developments of naval war fare." The British Government will therefore present no program to Parliament for capital-ship construction until the results of this inquiry have been considered. I understand that that now is the settled policy of the English Government to know thoroughly, and as conclusively as it can be known, what the revealments of the war are with reference to what constitutes an efficient navy. In that country, a country which for 200 years has dominated the sea, it is deemed wise to make haste slowly, not only in the interest of the tax payers, but in the interest of an efficient navy, and, above all, in the interest of that continued control of the sea so vital to her existence. That government, therefore, has deferred all building for six months and set its experts to work and asked for the fullest and freest expressions from all students on the subject. In England they still have freedom of speech in the navy, and many of the best men in their navy contend that the navy as it is now proposed, or has heretofore been proposed, is an obsolete navy. I would like to say here that if there is any way under our bureaucratic system of government to re lease the members of the navy to an expression of their real views on this subject I should like to have it Your Own United States SSfiH he what waa left of any old ham. judci it. roi and Andre HpAJli hot it ia the ram of a tavern i idrcw Johnaon, Teoncaaec'a three ootr.botioo Waabi.gtoo aad tbaar borne, in the atate of o old done. I know there are men high in the service of this country who have long been connected with the Amer ican Navy who feel that the expenditure of money upon these battleships is a waste of money. If We could have the same freedom of discussion that is tak ing place in England upon this subject I think we would be able to arrive, possibly, at a sound conclusion and I doubt if we shall ever arrive at a sound con clusion in any other way. A layman may have his views about it, but we must have the unbiased and uncontrolled view of those who have made a life study of it They must be permitted to say what they think without being brought to task for doing it The information that is necessary and useful to have as soon as possible relates to the practical result of suspending naval building operations at this time. I do not know whether it is practical or not. I think it is, but full information is essential. Partial or complete disarmament, if it is to come, and I hope it will, must be through the joint and sin cere effort of the nations now bearing the greatest burden of navy building. Disarmament, or the reduc tion of armament by whatever arrangement it can be consummated, has no bearing upon the efficiency of the navy, and so long as a building program is in or der, even if limited, it should follow the plans dic tated by efficiency and common sense. Occasionally one hears or reads that the United States, free as a nation from many of the political troubles that beset other countries, should be the first to disarm, an example that "would be gladly followed" by other powers. This view has led to many mis understandings. The fact is that the United States cannot take the first step unless this step in a sace di rection is taken by the other powers. The efficacy of the disarmament program lies in its acceptance by several nations; the more the better. Europe is still Europe, with all her racial antipathies and imperialistic appetites, with the same standards of government, whatever name the government may bear, and the same strange conceptions of right and justice, in whatever terms she may clothe her schemes of ambition. Mr. Lloyd George, in his campaign in 1918, de clared that he stood for "the abolition of conscript armies in all lands. Without that the Peace Confer ence would be a failure and a sham. These great mil itary machines are responsible for the agony the world has passed through, and it would be a poor ending to any peace conference that allowed them to continue." That declaration was made after the war had closed and when the dawn of a new day seemed to be breaking and when he was seeking a special authority from the people of his country for the purpose of in augurating a new world condition of affairs. It came very near being the first declaration toward disarma ment. Four years or so ago President Wilson said that the "freedom of the seas is the sine qua ncm of peace, equality and co-operation," adding that "it need not be difficult either to define or to secure the free dom of the seas," These statements concerning two elemental prin ciples of world peace were made by men who were in a position to know, whose experience justified them in making them, and who were in a position to carry them out. They went so far as to declare that with out their being incorporated in the Treaty of Peace or in the Covenant of a new world all the work oi peace would be in vain. Yet the freedom of F 1 m$n Bfl Bra, J ffl to tha oreaidene' Twioaaaw Kiogsport, TenacaaM, the seas remain pre cisely where it was be fore the war, and con scription is a thine not only unchallengd by the Peace Treaty, but made absolutely neces sary if the League of Nations based upon the combined military iorce of four or five peat powers shall continue. Wilson and Lloyd George stood in a po sition, if ever they in tended to initiate the dis armament movement, to initiate it at Versailles, yet there is no intima tion of any disarmament program in the treaty or in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The program of dis armament, if it is to be made feasible, must grow out of a sincere and joint desire of the various governments to get to gether and disarm. I is a joint duty. Let me be fair and say that I do not think that Europe can yield by itself. I do not know that it is pos sible for her to yield. On the other hand, has not the United States, in so far as she has gone, accepted the pollcy ot Europe ? . If we assume tne task of effectuating a change, we must do Jt upon the same basis as the past-by whatever power precept may exc. m n. Arc trn has x. iiv iw - r been taken.