THE AMERICAN NAVAL PR(lGBAMME.
ITo THE EDITOR or THE " tirECrATOR."1 Sm,—The enormous Naval Estimates of the United States stilt hang in the balance. It is quite possible that they will be considerably modified before their adoption by Congress, but in any case the programme of naval construction is so large as to have caused some alarm to peaceful-minded persons in both countries. As a result of this the sponsor of the pro- gramme, the United States Secretary of the Navy, Yoiephus Daniels, has been somewhat acidly assailed, both in private and in the Press, for putting forward what is regarded as war programme at a time whea the nations are almost single- minded in their desire for peace. Few persons on this side follow closely the political utterances of American statesmen, and it may therefore be advisable to recall the fact that the United States Secretary of the Navy has always been one of the chief leaders of the peace movement in America. lie has made it clear iu his public utterances for many years past that he is a consistent supporter both of the League of Nations and of the international reduction of naval armaments. If it is examined in the light of his past record, I think his present action will be found to be quite in accordance with his polies of the last six years, and in support of this 1 may perhaps be allowed to refer to 601110 of his own statements as outlined by him in official Memoranda during his term of office.
In 1913, when the proposal for a naval holiday had been made by Great Britain and refused by Germany, the United States Secretary of the Navy presented a Report to President Wilson in which the following two passages occur
"The suggestion of a vacation for one year in battleship building has met with hearty approval, and I venture the earnest hope that this will bear fruit in a well-considered plait by navy-building nations not to let the unneseisary competi- tion go to further lengths. . . ."
"I venture to recommend that the war and navy officials of all the nations be invited to hold a conference to discuss whether they cannot agree upon a plan for lessening the cost of preparation for war."
That the !ingestion was not adopted was no fault of its pro- poser, nor was it the fault of Great Britain. In 1914 the war broke out, and it seemed as though all hope of reduction of armaments of any Bort insist be abandoned. Any Englishman who had ventured then to say that there might still be a change of achieving as desirable an end would have been called both mad and a traitor. Yet among the heads of the Admiralties of the world it was the United States Secretary of the Navy alone who seems to have kept in view the ultimata possibilities of armament reduction as one of the outcomes of the war. There exists a Memorandum to the President, date•l December, 1914, in which he wrote :— " It may not be opportune at this time for our Republic to move for such a conference, but when peace smiles on this war-torn globe there may be reserved for America the coveted honour of initiating a movement which will make possible a reduction of fighting matt without imperilling the rights of any peoples."
The outlook in 1915 was worse. and the phrase "Thank Clod for the British Navy " was on the lips of every one who realised that that alone had saved Great Britain from the fate of Belgium. In this year I find the following was written by the United States Secretary of the Navy
" While conditions to-day are such that no suggestion looking to an international agreement could probably be made with prospect of present success, I entertaiu the sincere desire that when peace is restored the suggestions made in my reports may be considered and approved by the great navy-building nations of the world."
It is hardly necessary to labour the point; but I may per- haps be allowed to give bare quo! aliens from similar Memo- randa on the same subject from the same pen and addressed to the some source. Referring to the United States Navy Bill of 1916. when Congress had placed on record its sapirations for the establishment of an international Court of Arbitration, Mr. Daniels wrote:— " I earnestly hope the time is not far distant when this act of Congress will result in such agreement, and that the nations of the earth will have the statesmanship to devise effective means of preserving the world's peace without constantly building ever-increasing Dreadnoughts at ever-increasing cost. Until that hour arrives the United States cannot nudely adopt any policy other than that of continuing steadily to increase its naval strength."
And in 1917
" The necessity for naval vessels will continue, but among the policies that will be approved in the Peace Conference that will follow the war there should be incorporated a provision guaranteeing an -international navy to enforce international decrees. To this international navy, composed of separate naval establishments of all nations, each country should con- tribute in proportion to its wealth and population, or upon some plan to insure that no nation can safely challenge the decrees of the high international cone. To such a police of the sea this country will be ready to make full contribution, and to that end the expansion that now crowds all the old and sew shipbuilding resources will soon place this country in a position to furnish as mauy and as powerful ships as will come from any other country. It would be a lasting calamity if, when this war ends, there should linger as a burden upon a people, already heavily taxed by war, a competitive programme of costly naval construction."
Finally I may quote front the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy, which has just appeared in America. It was written immediately after the conclusion of the armistice with the Allies victorious, and it says:— "I have recommended to Congress the adoption of another three-year programme substantially like the one authorized in 1915. But the victory of the Allies and the United States should, and will, I sincerely trust, within a few yearn make it no longer necessary for any nation under whip and spur to burden its taxpayers to undertake to build, in competitive construction, bigger fighting ships and more of them than any other notion can construct."
In the same Report occurs the following offer :— " Inasmuch as the United States is the richest of the great nations, and has suffered less in war than any of the Allied lowers, it will devolve on this country to make a contribution to the navy to preserve the pence of the world commensurate with its wealth, its commerce, its growing and expanding merchant marine, and its leadership in the council of free peoples."
I think these exlroets may help to place the question of America's Naval Estimates in proper perspective, and it is for this reason that I venture to ask to be allowed to quote thou
in your columns.—I am, Sir, Sc., H. G. Damns. The United Stater Gorernment Committee on Public Information, London, U Ebury Street, S.W. 1.
Previous page
