The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-05-07
PAPERS ASSAIL.
CENSORSHIP BY
NAVAL OFFICER
Important Article Suppress
ed, London Editors Ap-
peal to Parliament

London, May Land and Water
announces that an article by A. p
Pollen, giving detailed arguments for
making change In the organization
and personnel of the Admiralty, in
view Of the submarine situation, had
been suppressed by the Admiralty.
The Star describes this as another
heavy blow struck at the liberty of
the press and points out that Pellen's
reputation as a naval writer is only
second to that of the late Admiral
Mahan. The Star calls upon Parlia-
ment to take. note of the fact that the
watehdegs Of the press are one by
one being muzzled, and this at mo-
ment when the need of every warn
ing voice Is evident. 1.-THE refusal of
the government to publish full figures
as to the tonnage sunk by submar-
ines and mines has fostered selfish
optimism on one hand and panic
mungering on the other,'' it says, land
this is the moment chosen by the gov
ernment to muzzle cautious, level
heads and sober criticism
Pollen himself acquits the censor
ship of all blame, thereby voicing the
common opinion Of Fleet street that
most of the so-called sins attributed to
LAS TtSS Dull ecu S4AOAAu RS IdAd de
the doors of other government de-
partments.
The naval censor, says Pollen. is
gallant naval officer, servant of the
Board of Admiralty, and is bound
to defend it to the last moment. "I
object strongly" he continues, with
fine irony, ''to the demolition Of the
Board of Admiralty on the strength of
a newspaper article. The board ought
to be abolished by the government.
When it is demolished we shall know
that the government knows it bust
ness, and the government ought to
know it's business without being told
by the press"
Pollen had an article in Land and
Water a week ago in which he outlin
ed the faults he found with the pres
emit system Of the Admiralty Board.
His theory has been widely discussed
in the daily press since then. and
many responsible organs have ex-
pressed approval Of it's suggestions.
The Star publishes the following
conversation with Pollen:
do you consider Sir Edward Car
son is a better first Lord than Mr.
Balfour?''
81 shall know when I see his new
board"
DO you think the existing. board is
failure?'
"As to that, consult the last two
returns of losses The naval members
Of the board command the fleet. The
function Of the fleet is to protect
trade Its success can be measured by
the weekly list"
"How long do you think our food
supplies will last?
ut depends upon whether We at
tempt to defend them or not"
How? ''
fleet"
"Have you plant"
eyes"
PUT the navy under people who
will fight
els this not a rash proposal?"
'sIt may seem so after our expert
ence of the last three years, but the
Idea is not original; it has been acted
| upon by our ancsetors:'
do you refer to Nelson?''
Eyes, but he is not the only expon-
emit Of a perfectly sound creed"
do you think the situation is
grave?"
Every grave"
Several papers have been taking
much the same line during the last
week, though not putting their points
so bluntly.
The Admiralty Board consists of an
outside civil lord and of sea lords,
each of whom has charge of a special
department, with the result, it Is
claimed by our advocates Of a change
that each lords particular RESPONSE
bilities are so large and exacting that
there is neither time nor opportunity
for the board to devote sufficient con-
sideration to the strategic problems Of
naval war.
Sir Edward Carson yesterday gave
an interview to a Belfast paper sug-
costing that his political appointments
were seeking to intimidate him, but,
| he said, they never made a greater