U.S.A. NAVY.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 January 1925, Page 1

U.S.A. NAVY.

CUTS LlliU COAL. iUBTRALIAN AND N.Z. OAP'jSI ASSOCIATION. WASHINGTON, January 10. The fuel appropriation contained in the Naval Appropriation Bill pievides for sufficient fuel to take the Fleet to Australia and back, so Seerof,.r-y Wilbur told the Senate Appropriations Committee. The recent testimony of Secretary Wilbur, which is now published discloses that Air Wilbur, when asked toneeruing the item of the fleet manoeuvres, said: “ I took the matter up with ihe Bureau of Engineering and Budget officers regarding the fuel allowance for going to Australia and getting bai lc. The officers of the Bureau of Engineering agreed that the fuel appropriation would permit us to go to Australia, and hack. AVe asked the Budget bureau for a large amount. I have forgotten the exact amount. IT it is found that the appropriation is insufficient to take us to Ausralia and hack, we can give up the idea of going there. We certainly are not going there and let them stay there. Wo can figure it all out before we start, but we are going right ahead. STRENGTH OF ITS.A. FLEET. WASHINGTON, January 10. Bel'iiio the Naval Committee, Secretary Wilbur, did not mention any other phase of the trip, but he told the Committee that the American Navy was in hotter condition than when the “5-5-3” treaty was signed. He said: “ I think it an outrageous implication to represent our ships as being all on the rocks. I believe that we have ships as good as any in the world. AVe would have no hesitation in meeting any fleet in the world in battle, with certain limitations. lie declared that as soon as the boil- : Idle bat oshin Florida was "inured the United States Navy would attan the 5—5 3 ration with Britain and Japan, lie ilcpreered the fume recently raised over the alleged ci-rpi-itated condition of the navy. l.Je suggested the modernisation of the battleships with blisters, the construction of airplane carriers under the Treaty and general repairs, as the chief improvement needed. He said that' when eight additional light cruisers were authorised by Congress were constructed, the United States would have a greater number of largo modern cruisers than Britain. Rear Admiral Eborle, Chief of the Naval Operations, was less optimistic lie said: “I. believe there has been some retrogression, due to natural deterioration and lailure to replace.’ ITc advised Congress to increase the appropriation for replacements aiid repairs, adding: “ Outside ol this, f think the Navy is stronger to-day than it was a year ago." BRITTEN'S MOVE. WASHINGTON, January ID. Representative Britton to-day abandoned until next Congress his move for aeiion mi a hill authorising the expenditure of six and a half million dollars on the elevation of the- guns on United States battleships, after Secretary \\ illuir’s testimony belorc the House of Representatives’ Naval Committee. All- Brit ten said: ••When the Secrot;u v of the Navy admits that- the Am em ail N," y is slower, is of hghlei tonnage, and is out ranged by Britain's guns, it is time for Congress to net. We should bare something to offset Hie liomo advantage Britain has over us, and the Secretary of ihe Navy, AllWilbur has testified that the elevation of the guns on our battleships would go a long wav to counteracting Britain’s advantage.

President Conlidge is opposed to Mr Britten’s move, however, on grounds of economy. so lluit Air Britten, declared that lie realised that while the bill stood a good chance of favourable action from the Committee, there was little prospect of it coming up in the House owing to the President's opposition.

COO I, IDG ITS ATTITUDE. AVAST! INO TON. January 10. It now transpires that President Coolidges opposition to the gun clevaiieit proposal advanced by Mr Britten was not oil account of ei.momy, as at first believed, hilt because it might endanger the spirit of the Washington Treatv. Following upon Mr Britten’s announcement that this question would la raised next: session, an emphatic statement has been issued by White House indicating that if such an effort is made if will encounter the opposition of the President, who holds that the entire modernisation question involves the whole policy of naval limitation as agreed to at the AYashington Conference. as against the old policy of competition. , President Conlidge is indifferent M whether the United States has the technical right, to make any changes that are Within the Treaty, omphasising that it would be a first step towards breaking down Rio spint <> armament limitation and forecasting a revival of the naval race b\ sc precedent for ether nations to lotion.