New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-12-23

there is a great speeding up in con
struction over recent records.
That in the changes Mr.. Daniels has
made from the General Board plan No
has delayed by year the completion
Of the programme, cut down the allow
snce for aviation and feet auXiliaries
reduced the demands for increase ID
personnel, and, apparently for politi'
cal purposes, gone far beyond the
board in providing submarines.
To these charges the administration
and its friends reply that the views
Of naval experts are not conclusive
that they cannot be expected to take
into consideration any other factor;
than their intensive ideals of nava
glory, and that il il the duty Of the
executive 10 sift and pass on theli
plans and 70 recommend 10 Congress
and the nation such as he approves
Mr.. Daniels explains that the oosrc
did not insist on the publication o.
the July 80 report.
81 asked them whether the fve-yeai
programme was the report they wanted
published and said il was" the Score,
tary declared. "The General Board
submits many reports during the year
and Il is manifestly impossible to pub
lish them all. in the matter Of selee-
ton I have merely followed their
wishes."
To this il Is answered that the Gen
eral Board Is quite likely to have beer
willing to accept the Secretary's sug
gestions as 10 publication, and that
whether this was the case or not the
public mas a right to some solid basis
FOR consideration Of defence plans, sucr
as would be afforded by their opinion
and recommendation.
Congress Lacks Information.
This lack of any basis for the discus
sion of defence plans is the first anc
most serious Of the difficulties confront
ing Congress in its attempt TO frame
wise legislation, and the Withholding
Of IL Is the most serious Of the charge:
against Mr.. Daniels and the administra
ton.
The statement of the board that the
United States navy should be equal To
that of any other nation" is considered
extravagant on its face, but so vague
that, standing alone, it really means
nothing as "a basis for discussion. 1t Is
pointed out that IL Great Britain ano
Germany continue building at the rate
they have maintained 20 date they viii
have, respectively, eighty-nine and nifty
seven dreadnoughts and battle cruisers
by 1925, against thirty-three for the
United States under the Daniels plan
To build at a rate which would over
take England is believed beyond the
present power Of the United States, and
1t is not thought the board can have
meant this.
On the other hand, the present plans
contemplate a navy which would no.
be at all equal TO Germany's, and which
would be only a little stronger than
Japan's. In view of the demonstration
in the naval battles of the present wal
that even a slight inferionty insures
the destruction of the weaker fleet, the
critics do not believe that the board
contemplated America building a navy
which would be unable TO meet either
Germany or Japan in battle.
Ii has long been the policy OF the
United States 10 consider that there
was no danger of being called on to
match strength against England, and
the boards statement does not make
clear whether il contemplates an aban-
donment Of this policy or not. II is
recognized that because of England's
many and widespread interests she
would never be able to use her whole
naval strength against the United
States. One Of the facts believed per
tinent to a sound policy is an under
standing of whether the feet is to be
prepared to meet the British navy, and,
il so. how much Of that navy is eX-
pected to be available against the
United States ships.