U.S. COASTAL DEFENCE

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20168, 21 February 1931, Page 16

U.S. COASTAL DEFENCE

ly < X -| ARfiiY tfAVY AT v , LOGGERHEADS. 1? * M Reports ' received in' England last month from the .United States shed # strange light on the underground struggle between the Army . and the' Navy for control' of 'coastal;air ,sbfence. ■ , - Although the fight has been in profgress since 1921, a satisfactory settle-' ment seems still unreached. Each Service accused the other of trying to go behind its back (says the "Daily Telegraph"). The most. ironical development has been the appeal of the Navy Department to the Attorney-General for a legal ruling dispute. armies and navies used to go to war, they now apparently go to law! This must be an encouragement to the pacifists and; to all who acclaim the virtues of arbitration. But the law evaded the.charge, per-, haps remembering the proverbial fate of those who intervene in a domestic quarrel. The Attorney-General cautiously replied that "For several reasons I believe that h would be inexpedient for me to render an opinion." ' The Army has n*ade objection, to the Navy's building of shore-based boinbers, and claimed that the Navy should confine itself to the ship-based aircraft. There were complaints that the Navy was trying to oust military aircraft from- the-coastal 'air stations,'was;con-' coaling its programme of construction from the' Joint Aeronautical Board, and Wis duplicating the Army's machines** Naval officers retort that in war they canjiot waste time in ' applying ; • for Amy aircraft to deal with* raiding ships that may suddenly appeal 1 Oft the Coast. .. • , -■ | The Attorney-General, in replying to ! the Secretary of the Navy, remarked that Congress held the purse-strings, and should define how the- publift. money should be spent y This abortive appeal by the.JNavyto the Department of Justice, was followed bv ap Army appeal to President Hoover, He, it is-said, told; the two s Services that they ! must come to '& settlement between theixlselves. 'But it does not seem that this injunction, is likely to prove' any more., conclusive; than Mr Baldwin's appeal to our-older, Services in 1923 in regard to the existence of a separate Air Service as finally > settled* . - .-v. m . ;