The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1896-1929, 1915-09-30
Hon. Claude kifChin'S Letter
on the Nations Preparedness
Scotland Neck, N. c., Sept, 4th, 1915.
Mr.. H. ID. G. Bryant,
New York World Bureau,
w ashington, D. G..


Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr.. Bryant
1 am in receipt Of your letter. ddn IT intend my
little hurried talk Of three four minutes just [
was leaving Washington for North Carolina the other
day with personal friend, a newspaper man of my
State relative to the big naval and military program,
being agitated throughout the country to be pub
lished, though | did not caution against it. Since,
however, my position has been SO frequently msrepre
sented by the press doubt unintentionay, it would
not improper for to state my position, rath-
my views, with more cea1ess, in compliance with
your request.
[ at wish to say that I have never stated,
as appears in the clippings you kindly send, that
would oppose any appropriation exceeding $1OO00O00
to $2OOOOOOo for national defense. have been vot-
ing for the last several years for appropriations in the
annual Naval Bill exceeding $120OOOO 900 and for
y $1OOOOOOOO, in the Military Bill; did say that
Congress would for increased appropriations
for naval and military purposes and that it would take
the position which do. confident that the next
Congress will vote for larger appropriations and will
not take the position to the naval and military ap-
preparations which will In other words, admit that
| will be minority on the question: Nor have said,
the press would have it, that the present European
War has demonstrated the useessness Of the battle
ship dreaCnaught. have said though, and repeat
it now, that it has demonstrated, beyond any doubt
that Navy lacking in submarines destroyers
scout-slips and other auNiliaries including air craft
far more than in batleships, or dreadnaughts, view
which many members Of Congress, including myself
held and expressed long before the European War
While was member Of the naval committee insist
ed that the Navy Department paying too much at
enton to and had too much faith dreadnaughts and
paying too little attention to and had too little faith
in submarines, torpedo destroyers, etc. l. together
with other members Of the committee urged, in vain,
increase in such smaller craft in order to have
better proportioned and more efficient Navy. The
has certainly demonstrated the wisdom of this posi-
ton. However, / assert that the lessons Of the
present furnish many good reasons for their prob
ability that the will demonstrate that the dread
naught nine Of which we have under construction
.roI C1v11o
the big Navy propagandists insist that the next Con
gress should largely increase will not hereafter be the
prime weapon Of oense defense in naval warfare,
and to believe they will become obsolete
after the termination Of this war; if not before. year
ago Sir Percy Scott Of England abest and wisest
officers, declared that the submarine the most ef
ship for the Navy of the future ard advied
cessation in the rapid construction OF dreadnaughts
and the utilization Of the money thus spent in build
ing larger number Of submarines. And this long be-
fore the two three German submarines had played
such havoc with the British fleet. Has not the war
demonstrated concusvey the correctness OF his opn-
ion and the wisdom Of his advice? If reports from the
British German and other beligerent ship yards are
true not England, Germany, and other warning ma
tons now taking his advice? So far, this war has
proved that the most dangerous naval weapon OF OF
fense and certainly the surest and most efcaclous
weapon of defense, is the submarine.
When the real, sea a-gong submarine, one that
can go through the and attack enemy fleet
thousands Of miles from base many Of which are now
being built by Germany according to reports the last
Congress authorized the construction Of three for
Navy is put into service in this war; it may, and prob
ably WILL revoutionze the war-ship construction pol
icy Of the world The dreadnaught advocate IN our
country repeatedly asserts that the war has demon
strted the absolute usefulness and necessity OF the big
oreadnaught or batteship; that the superior battle
ship fleet of Great Britain and her Allies swept the Ger
man feet and German commerce from the seas. Ii
Great Britain and her Allies had not had battleshlp,
German commerce and the German fleet would have
been swept from the exactly like they were
Great Britain an her Allies had enough torpedo boats
and destroyers enough sub rines to have sent
after each battleship, battlecruiser, and arnored
cruiser the entire German Navy, ten torpedo boats
and destroyers and three submarines; enough to have
DESTROYED driven to harbOr, under protection OF
submarines and mines the German fleet was, the
combined battleslip fleets Of the world, If located
where the German fleet then Great Britain alone
had four desroyers and two submarines Tor each OF
the big warships Of the German Navy.
Now, a more direct reply to your letter: am
opposed to the big Navy and Army program now be-
inc agitated with much energy throughout the
country especially by the jingoes and manufacturers
of war equipment their subtle, ramied, organized
and powerful influences. [ shall not support IN the
next Congress the eight, SIX or four batleshlp or