AMERICAN NAVY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1403, 1 April 1912, Page 5

AMERICAN NAVY.

NO MORE- BATTLESHIPS THIS YEAR. By Tclesraph-Pretfl Association-Copyright New York, March 29. Tho Democratic caucus, representing a majority of members in the House of licprescntalives, has adhered to the decision not to agree to an increase in the number of battleships during the present year. Tho. Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. Stimson) declares that this decision is shortsighted and unstatesmnnlike, und will have a tendency to depreciate tho military value of tho fleet as an insurance against war. The Democrats had lost sight of tho absoluto necessity r.f tho United States commanding tho Pacific, DEMOCRATIC ECONOMY. CUTTING DOWN THE TWO-KHIP POLICY. • The clash between an irresistible Democratic zeal for economy and immovable necessity for army and navy appropriations is not expected (says tho New York "Literary Digest") to bring about such dire results as when, in a similar ca.« thirty-five years ago, army officers and men went without any pay until tho following session. Nevertheless, tho refusal of Iho Democratic caucus to lino ui» for tho usual two-battleship programme iml the passage by the Homo of the Hay Bill, with its amendment reducing the strength of our cavalry force, may lie serious enough to provide an "issue" in the coming campaign. Tho Secretary of tho Navy dcclnres that with Iho "neutrality of the canal" to maintain and Iho Monroe Doctrine to enforce America must have a nary. A navy means Dreadnoughts, because "the Dreadnought type is the warship of the present day." Even with a continuous programme of two battleships a year, the United States would fall a little behind its present clfectivo strength, for tho reason that in another year four of our battleships built during tho same period will become non-effective." If the Democrats wanted "real economy" they should havo "had the courage" to abolish the unnecessary navy yards, which would have reduced "(he expenditure of money in certain districts," but would havo saved 'un outlay, not merely for one year, as m the case of refusal to appropriate fur battleships but for years to come, and without decreasing tho efficiency of the navy."

Tin-' 'Washington correspondents admit That (he caucus action niuy Iμ reversed, and (lint at least ono now Tjnttle&hin may be authorised. Evimi if this is nut done, the llouso Naval Committee will recommend an unusual number of auxiliaries and smaller fi?litine craft. 'J'his programme, is de-feuded by <everal Coii"i-e«-incii as wi« even fj-Ku the military standpoint, and a needed step toward a bett-cr-lmUmocd and loss (-m-heavv lrivv. But this "Tho Navy" calls "absurd":— "It is well recognised that wo have, not enough auxiliaries, but because we have not enough auxiliaries, does not make 'hat wo have enough battleships. "Suppose wo had but' half as many battleships and were proportionately weal; in auxiliaries: would »toiWsk in (lie comparatively eafilv provided auxiliary be a valid re.-uan for failing to provide' the necessary battleship*—which, -to be provided, must be built—they cannot k> bousrlit or improved. .

"The strength of the. nnvy is. after all. measured bv i!s battleships. Take these away and there is no navv. 'Reduce their number, n.iul you weaken the national defence. Tho failuifl in past years to provide for the ;ifce;-*.ary force- of'cruiscrs, destroyers, submarines, and auxiliaries to give us a well-Kilaiu-nd (left is no excuse for neglect hie-, at thi« critical juncture, the provision of battleships needed to maintain our -fighting strength."