U.S. NAVAL EXPANSION

Hokitika Guardian, 15 February 1928, Page 3

U.S. NAVAL EXPANSION

REPLY TO CRITICS. (Australian it N.Z. Cable Association.) i NEW YORK, Feb. 13. I In a remarkable .speech before bu.si- • nessmon at Indianopolis, Dir AVilbur 1 defended the Naval programme. He insisted that the States had, and could • maintain naval superiority over Britain. but to reassure the nations of the wo-rld of America’s peaceful intentions the United States had agreed to an extended scrapping programme at the Washington Conference which involved monetary loss in scrapping now ships anil equipment. Mr Wilbur added: “And yet we find ourselves assailed on every side by pacificist declarations, that we are becoming militaristic.’’ He insisted that the Amercan programme was in a large measure a replacement programme. Then turning to the Ceneva Conference he said: “In the senses that Britain could have agreed with the other two Powers and did not do so. the fault of the failure is hers.” Mr Wilbur said that Britain sprang a surprise by proposing to divide the cruisers' into two classes. This ingenious proposal was well fitted to the needs of Britain and her Empire', but America’s lack of naval bases made the proposal impracticable' for her. Britain’s minimum .needs—six 'hundred thousand tons—was not a limitation of armament, hut rather an agreement to extend armaments and thereunder the United States would have hot'ii compelled to build between a half and three-quarter billion dollars worth of ships, not well adapted to American use. to obtain a nominal purity in tonnage with Britain. America could not complain concerning Britain’s desire to spread her expenditure over a comparatively largo number of smaller cruisers America, as long ago as last summer, had made it clear that she desires to build a navy for her needs, and not for the purpose of attaining a parity with Jlrtiain There was- no idea of feverish aetivity because of the failure of the Ceneva Conference. The fundamental reason for the present programme being so large, was that the I nitial States had not been building, because of her hope for a .supplementary treaty to Washington Treaty. 'file I’niteit States was willing to accept a hazard, due to the decrease in the number of ships, at Ceneva, if other nations were willing to accept similar hazards. Those who were attacking the programme would compel American sailors to light blindfolded, 'flic American licet in gun power, torpedo power a ltd striking power was satisfactory, hut in cruisers and destroyers. which were the eyes ol a licet, there were manv obsolete vessels, which must lie replaced. America was not planning a licet superior to Britain’s. The Navy Department- was desirous of building necessary auxiliaries now before hping confronted with the problem of replacing capital ships in accordance with the Washington Treaty. The live year programme would cost, 710 million dollars The American candy hill in 1925 was 750 fill 1 inn dollars, while in 1925 a million dollars was spent on cosmetics and nine hundred million dollars on theatres.

The speaker then said: "Britain’s rubber monopoly would have taken a billion dollars from us in the last twoyears. if il bad not been for our Secretary of 'Commerce.” .Mr W ilbur concluded b.v stating that American resources are sufficient to justify American expenditures.