Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-04-10

in the construction of battle ships He was
not so favorable to that type of vessel that he
would build many of them. If the
navy were increased 100 per cent he
battle ships. He would favor the construction
of fast cruisers which could destroy the COM
merce Of any nation with whom We might be-
come involved in war.
Mr.. Oates (Ala.) criticised the amendment
because it did not go far enough. 1t
while it should have stricken out all
three. He did not believe that there
was any necessity for entering on the construc-
ton Of this class of ships at this time. II had
been said that some little South American ma
ton had a war ship which could come and lay
New York under tribute. 1t must be presumed
that nations were governed by common sense
and any nation doing that would soon be an
outlying province of the United States.
NOT SECTIONAL OR POLITICAL MEASURE.
Mr.. Boutelle (Me.) said that the bill was in
no sense a sectional or political measure. In
drafting it the committee on naval affairs had
been governed by no interest narrower than
that OF the whole country. He opposed the
amendment to reduce the number of battle
ships to two. If the bill were passed in its
present form the entire obligation assumed by
the United States during the past four years,
together with this year, would amount annu-
ally to $7,927 600. He would not discuss the
propriety OF construction of ships that could
fight. If the government would build two
battle ships there was no economic reason why
three should not be authorized.
Mr.. Wheeler (Ala. inquired whether, if one
Of the battle ships should be dispensed with, it
would not be one which was to be constructed
on the gulf coast
Mr. Boutelle replied that he could not tell.
The bill would have to be reconstructed. He
hoped and expected to see plant erected on
the gulf coast capable of constructing one Of
these vessels.
Mr.. Herbert's amendment was lost-31-52.
ANOTHER AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
Mr.. Wheeler (Ala.) offered an amendment
authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to con-
tract with private parties for the construction
Of two vessels of such type and speed
as shall render them specially adaptable
as armed crui sers, to be built on plans submit
ted by the Navy Department. In the event of
war the government shall have the right to
charter such vessels at such reasonable terms
as the Secretary Of the Navy may prescribe.
Ruled out on point of order.
NO NEED OF BATTLE SHIPS.
Mr.. Peters (Kan.) moved to strike out the
entire clause for the increase of the navy.
He believed that the United States had no
need of battle ships and possessed all the
cruisers that it required. The bill was a propo-
sition, as it had been demonstrated TO build q
sition then it must go on and build, not three
battle ships, but twenty or twenty-five
battle ships. Unless the United States
had such fighting navy it was absolutely
useless to have half a dozen of these vessels.
Battle ships of this character could not enter the
harbor of New York except at certain hours of
the day. They could not enter half the ports OF
the country. Where must the battle ship be
placed! Out upon the Atlantic ocean with the
proverbial chip on her smoke stack, waiting
for foreign ship to come along
and have a fight. The only safety
for the seacoast cities was the Notifications
which could be constructed. If the fortifica-
tions could not protect them all the battle
ships which could be built before 1000 could
not do SO. The clause not only meant an
expenditure of s15.0OO, 900 for battle ships and
100000 for a cruiser, but it meant an en-
largement of the navy. There WAS a sentiment
gradually reaching over the country that the
United States should never increase either Its
army or navy until it became involved i'll actual
war, Of which there was no probability.