Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, JAN. 25, 1938. NAVAL BUILDING.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 48, 25 January 1938, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, JAN. 25, 1938. NAVAL BUILDING.

Having before it the pointed declaration by the Chief of Naval Operations to the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives that conditions in Europe and the Far East make it impossible to restrict defence without jeopardising national security,, the United States Government plans to carry out important additions to its navy within the prescriptions of the Washington Treaty. A gigantic sum, 553 million dollars, is named _in the Appropriation Bill, which has met with a good deal of resistance, but the cablegrams indicate that the scheme will go on. Several croups in the United States, including leaders of big business, contend that, despite ominous portents in the East, and talk of possible danger to the Philippines, there is no need for the two additional warships mentioned in the Bill. Instead, it is asserted that the time is ripe for President Roosevelt to call a world naval disarmament conference. It is of importance that Britain has decided to invite the Great Powers to a conference in which the question of armaments rightly takes a leading place. In considering whether it is necessary for the American Government to abandon the policy of naval restriction it has been following, a comparison with the navies of other great Powers is worth while. Great Britain, at the beginning of last year, had afloat 12 battleships, 56 cruisers, 148 destroyers and 55 submarines ; the United States had 15 battleships, 26 cruisers, 182 destroyers and 80 submarines; Japan had 9 battleships, 40 cruisers, 97 destroyers and 61 submarines. The United States was building two battleships (Great Britain 5), 12 cruisers (Great Britain 2<, Japan five), 54 destroyers (Great Britain 49, Japan 20) and 17 submarines (Great Britain 21, Japan 10).

In recent months, with the threat of a Japanese drive southward, the eyes of the Powers have been closely riveted on .the Far East; and if justification were required for America’s latest appropriation it could be found in that alone, for her interest in the Philippines lias to be guarded at a range of several thousand miles. It is patent that naval strength to her means strength in the Pacific. On 3he other hand, while for a lengthy period the United States was presented with conditions favourable to a naval building “holiday,” Great Britain and France had to contend for many months earlier with a very dangerous situation in the Mediterranean, and now there is a fear in France that she may be required to meet much greater naval expenditure as the ally of Britain in the Mediterranean

should Britain be compelled to greatly strengthen her Far East complement of warships. The shifting scejie of international complications is bringing home acutely to the United States taxpayer that with the stultifying of the isolationist policy there is an added burden of expenditure; no longer can his Government afford to remain aloof from such vital questions as long-range naval defence. Whatever may transpire aneut the suggested world peace conference, the outlook at the moment indicates there are many factors against naval disarmament, and it seems that Mr Roosevelt’s new appropriation may be but the forerunner of others. Meanwhile, the American business man and investor is lamenting the fact that while taxation must meet the higher naval costs, the country’s domestic affairs are not giving industry' the breathing ,space it seeks for healthy development in order to meet such additional calls for revenue.