Evening star., 1916-09-04
PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM
is NOT DEEMED ADEQUATE
National Security League Not Con-
tent With Big Army and Navy
Appropriation Acts.

Criticism Of the army and navy defense
measures enacted at this session OF Con-
gress Is contained in a statement Issued
by the National Security League. The
army measure falls far short Of the
| recommendation of the War College di-
vision of the general staff" says the
statement, while the navy law leaves
much to be accomplished.
while the army defense law provides
for all the organizations recommended by
the War College," says the leagues state
mcnt, 'it reduces the strength of these
organizations one-third. The ultimate
strength Of the mobile army and the coast
artillery was fixed at 175,0o0 instead Of
go, 200. and further provided that even
this reduced strength should not be OBJ
tained until the lapse Of five years. The
appropriations for next year provide for
an army of only 105,00o. The new law
Of men serving with the colors. but as to
the number of reserves that can be OBJ
tanned for the regular army.
Citizen Soldiery.
THE War College also recommended
the creation of a force of partially trained
or citizen soldiers This force it declared
should have minimum training of nine
months and be maintained at strength
Of 500, 900 Under the War College program
we would eventually have a regular army
Of 80 900 with the coIors and 80 900 re
serve. The citizen soldiers would give
Us 100000 more. making total of 1000,
900 federal troops. The National Guard,
according to the War College recon-
mendations, should continue under it's
former status of state troops with ad-
ditional assistance from the federal gov
ernment.
THE defense bill substituted for the
500 900 federal troops force consisting of
volunteer militia. one regiment of 500 in
each congressional district being au-
thorzed Even If this volunteer force
could be enlisted, which is doubtful, it
would only aggregate about 100000
Navy Plan Some Better.
In the naval building program" the
leagues statement continues, Congress
increased the recommendations of the
Secretary of the Navy and followed
more closely the recommendations of
the general board The latter outlined
Ia fve-year program, while the naval
appropriation bill provided for a three
year program.
The general board asked for four
battleshps and six battle cruisers in
the first year, while Congress author
ized four battleships and four battle
cruisers. The general board asked for
three scout cruisers the first year and
four the second, while Congress author
lzed four the first year. The general
board asked for fifty destroyers, nine
Of which We're to be built the first
year. Congress authorized ten the first
year ana Fifty in all. General board
asked for hfty-eight coast submarines,
with twenty to be built the first year
Congress authorized the construction
OF thirty the first year, and added
special type known as the Nef subma-
rine not recommended by the general
board
1T viii thus be seen that while the
naval building program was more sat
isfactory than the initial propositions
contained in the House naval commit
tee bill, the plans Of the naval experts
We're not fully adopted, thus leaving
much to he accomplished