The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 27th, 1925. AMERICA'S NAVAL BUDGET.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 August 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 27th, 1925. AMERICA'S NAVAL BUDGET.

What is described as “the Budget battle” between Gone nil 11. M. 1-ord and Mr C. D. Wilbur is of interest outside the United States. The- fact that it corresponds to a similar cleavage of opinion in Britain invests it, indeed, with special interest to the people of this land, comments a northern writer, apart from the common concern in the Pacific that makes Now Zealanders alertly attentive to naval discussions in America. In Britain, Mr Winston Churchill, as Chancellor of the Kxchequer, lias been at odds with the Admiralty in his eagerness to keep expenditure at a minimum. In the United States. General Lord, as Director of the Budget, lias Leon similarly opposed to the Navy Department. The issue, comerned with expenditure on cruiser construction, naval oases and jicisonnel, is the same. Happily, although comparisons between the navies of Britain and America have come into both discussions, imparting a note of rivalry, the rivalry is that of friends. There is no taige of national hostility in it. There is an abiding confidence in the continued co-operaion of the two branches of the great Knglish-speaking race in the preservation of the freedom of the seas. Of that co-opera-tion's continuance the visit to our shores of the American warships is a token and pledge. Since, by the 'Washington treaty’s battleship ratio, these two nations have accepted a naval equality, and since their naval aims are one. New Zealanders’ sympathies will be with Mr Wilbur, as lie places his ease before the President. even as they rejoiced in the Admiralty’s getting of its way with Mr Churchill. Tt is admitted by Captain Knox, chief of the historical section of the Navy Department, that America’s naval expenditure has been and still is higher than it should be: but he makes a spirited defence against economy’s being practised to the detriment of naval strength and efficiency. “It would he stupid and manifestly erroneous to contend.” he says, “that, during the last eight years of strenuous trial there hare not been many important deficiencies properly chargeable against the navy.” iMr Wilbur's proposals do not appear extravagant. As To personnel, the navy's war strength was 115,000. It was reduced to 106.000 by June, 30th. 1922. At the end of the next naval year it had been brought down further to 67.000; Mr "Wilbur presses the necessity for 85,000. That is certainly larger than the British figure, but allowance must be made for the youthful and short-service nature of Amcri-

can enlistments. Congress •was ready last year to approve the building of eight new cruisers in keeping with tlio provisions of the Washington treaty; Mr Wilbur now asks for six only. Concerning fleet bases, he urges, in opposition to those who set the need for economy against the Navy Department’s requests, expenditure on the Pacific Coast and at Hawaii. Looked at through British eyes, his case is convincingly strong. His opponents have magnified the certitudo of peace, the self-contained nature of the United States, and the advance in aviation. But- there is need for guarding sea-communications against violation, the United States has needed that freedom, and the range and efficiency of aircraft are inadequate and likely to ho so. In tlie.se things, America and Britain join hands, and they owe it to each other and the world to do their task wed.