Arizona republican., 1916-02-24

above five-inch had total muzzle energy of 6,166,44 feet tons and d to- tai broadside projectile weight of 792,
 966 pounds, while Germany's total
 muzzle energy was J.474,S5S and a
 broadside projectie weight of 196
 072 pounds.
 If the best measure of the strength of our fleet is in it's gun power' he said, then we have got a stronger navy than Germany, have we not?"
 Tt depends on how the guns are mounted or carried Admiral Badger replied. He pointed out that some for eign nlvies employed many swift cruisers with comparatively heavy guns, which single heavy ship with far lower total gun power would sink in a few hours of combat
 Representative Galloway sought also
 to show that France was far behind the United States in gun power. Ad- miral Badger said France was build ing four ships to carry sixteen 134 guns, each mounted four to turret When completed they would give her q total of 15S guns of this size, while
 the United States would have afloat about the same time eighty 4-inc!. and eighty 12-inch. The new French ships. he said, would be the most heavily armed in the world, but he thought it a mistake to have placed l their guns four to q turret. A fourth
 of their power would be lost. he said, if single turret were damaged. Admiral Badger refused tu give for | publication his opinion as to the time 1 it would require to get tne United | States fleet ready for action against first-class power. His attention was called to a statement to the committee
 last year by Rear Admiral Bradley | A. Fisk that it would take five years. ! He said he did not agree with that
 calculation, put preferred to discuss
 the subject later in executive session. | During Representative Callaway's
 examination of the witness, Chairman
 Padgett urged him to confine himself l into SpeculationS. The time will 1 come" Mir. Padgett said when the ! chair will entertain a motion to close | the hearings, whether everybody has 1 been heard or not
 While the navy committee was gath 1 ering information, both the senate and 1 house military committees were strug- 1 gling with details of the army part 1 of the preparedness program. The
 senate committee virtually completed it's preliminary review of the meas
 ure to be drafted for the rgular army, lagreement being reached upon it's main | feature.
 ! The bill will provide for a peace
 strength standing army of 175,060 men as against 135.000 proposed by the house bill under consideration. The
 war strength will be fixed at 225,OO0. l A seven-y year enlistment, three with i the colors and four in the reserve, will be expected to provide the men
 to fill up the regiments for war serv- l ice Under this plan the soldier could | be discharged into the reserve at the | end of a year if found efficient and ! can optionally go into the reserve at ! the end of two years if he desires.
 The senate bill follows closely the | plan of 1912 devised by the army war
 college after an executive study. De-
 tails of organizations unchanged by
 the department this year. however,
 will be worked out in the measure
 which is in reality a complete reor- | ganiZation of the land forces. The
 committee will begin at once devising
 it's own plan for federaizing the Ma
 tional Guard.