The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1920. AMERICA'S NAVAL AMBITION

Taranaki Daily News, 26 May 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1920. AMERICA'S NAVAL AMBITION

Mr. Josephus Daniels, Secretary for the United States Naval Department, appears to be doing his utmost to cause ill-feeling between America and i Britain. It would also seem that he has highly exaggerated views of the importance of the' United States navy. If America wishes to have the largest navy in the world, the largest warships, and the heaviest' guns, that is her affair, though the luxury will be very costly, and the capital involved might be far better employed than by bolstering up a vain fad. At the same time this new departure cannot be reconciled with the insistent demand made by President Wilson for universal disarmament after the war, but no one expects consistency from that quarter. America's action, when she entered the war on the side of the Allies, was fully appreciated and applauded throughout the British Empire. Though some of the promised aids, of which' a great parade was made, did not materialise, there was little comment of an unfriendly nature. It would seem by the proceedings of the Senate Investigation' Committee at Washington that Mr. Daniels has developed a strong anti-British bias, and that he is suffering from the sting caused by the revelations of Admiral Sims, who was in charge of the American fleet sent to Europe to assist, the Allies in their antisubmarine campaign. Judging by the parting ndvicegivcntoAdmm.il Sims by Admiral Benson—advice evidently inspired by the Navy Department--"not to allow the British to. pull the wool over his eyes," it was expected this fleet would take and hold the lead in naval operations; it was to adopt Caesar's motto: " I came, I saw, I conquered," but Admiral Sims refrained from making himself look ridiculous by dictating to the British naval authorities, whom he recognised, were far better able than himself to direct the campaign. Instead, he communicated his views to Washington, where they were unpalatable, and his advice condemned, the result, being, according to Admiral Sims, that the failure of the American naval authorities to co-operate in the Allied plans prolonged the war unnecessarily. Apparently the honest independence of Admiral Sims in daring to have the courage of his opinions brought down upon him the taunt that he was too pro-Bri-tish, and he has been unjustly denounced by the Naval Secretary in his evidence before the Senate Committee. It -would certainly seem that Admiral Sims was in a far better position to form a reliable opinion on the Allies' naval tactics than Mr. Daniels, who seems to have taken the Admiral's expert advice as a personal affront, nor is the President free from blame in having issued orders to the officers of the United States fleet to act audaciously. The sequel is still more remarkable as showing how Mr.. Daniels set about restoring his wounded vanity by evolving a scheme for obtaining the largest navy in the world. If an occasion should arise when the American navy has to give an account of itself against an enemy, it is to be hoped it will not follow the orders of President Wilson, throw 'tradition to the winds, and act andacio'usly* to the utmost point of risk and daring. The whole business before the Senate Investigation Committee was ludicrous to a degree, and discloses a littleness that is derogatory to so great a nation. The so-called revelations can only be understood in the light of political capital in view of the next elections. Nothing could be more preposterous than the President's querulous complaint to the British Admiralty that he could not understand" why the British experts were unwilling to allow the Washington Naval Department to tell them how things ought to be done, and nothing but American electioneering methods can account for the antiR»,ti*b. tone of the evidence given

by Mr. Daniels to the Investigation Committee—with the approval of the President. British naval Commanders can afford to smile at such puerility, knowing very well that the American Navy took no part in serious raids, hut required its fleet mainly for the protection of the American coasts. What service it gave, the Allies was duly appreciated. Had the British Admiralty acted on President Wilson's advice to he "prepared to sacrifice half the AngloAmerican navies" in order to destroy >the hornet's nest of submarines, Germany would have won the war. Apparently Mr. Danieis is going to show the world-not only how to attain naval supremacy, but how to handle the greatest fleet in existence. The world need not be alarmed at th'is obsession born of envy. Ambition is a great lever when rightly used, but, as the German militarists found, may lead to disaster. Unless the present indications are misleading, it is likely-the United States may have more troubles than can be successfully met in' the not distant future, and it is to be deplored that the leading men of this great country should be so short-sighted as to be anti-British, when it is so essential for the peace of the world that the utmost harmony should prevail between the two countries, unclouded by petty jealousy, or hampered by lack of true' friendship.