AMERICA'S NAVAL POLICY.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19179, 9 December 1927, Page 11

AMERICA'S NAVAL POLICY.

TO TUE EDITOR OS THE PSES3. Sir, —Your article in yesterday's PitESs under the abovo heading appeared at an opportune time, to me, and doubtless to many others who have been puzzled by the discrepancy shown between precept and practice on the part of one of the great Powers concerned in the question of naval disarmament. America expressed a strong desire for a conference of Powers to be held with a vieSv to reducing the burdens incurred by the vast, expenditure involved .in building warships land-the maintenance of naval armaments. A meeting was held attended by representatives of three great Powers, at which Britain frankly stated the strength necessary for the protection of her vast mercantile marine, ar U the defence of the Empire .generally, if need should unhappily arise. America, on the other hand, claimed that her Fleet must be on a parity with Britain's, and suggested further reductions to which Britain could not agree, and so the Conference ended. without material results.

And now what do wo find? We read that Lord Cushe.udun reports at Geneva that Britain, since, the .war ended, has scrapped' 2,000,000 tons of ships, has abandoned two naval bases, and two arsenals, abolished conscription, and rcduoed the Ariny to an imperialPolico Force!,

I We turn to America,' the chief advocato for disarmament conferences — and we read that "President Coolidgo has consented to a vote of 48,000,000 dollars for the increase of the American Navy," and further, that whether or no an agreement had been arrived at, "Their building programmo would have been continued." Practically Britain says in reply to. the call for disarmament, "Wo have already disarmed as far as our responsibilities of Empire will allow." America, on the other hand, calls for disarmament as a matter of precept, but as a matter of practice votes for an increased naval strength, apparently solely on the ground of a desire to be on a parity with Britain. . I must confess the matter is past mv understanding. I am not a membey of the Navy League, but am strongly in svmpathy with its views, and while I honour "and approve the League of Nations for its efforts to preserve , the world's peace, I trust wc shall never allow ourselves to be lulled into a false security and endanger the safety of the Empire by heading the pleas'of those who would urge further disarmament bv Britain in the face of the fact that so far as I am aware, no other Powers have taken even their initial steps—Yours, etc.. \V. .MI-Lijoo. Xew Brighton, December Sth. PS—I see bv to-day's cables that the British Admiralty has ordered the scrapping of 39 more vessels.—V .M.