New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-03-18
4 ReUIew of Ruthless
ness" andHS Results, ls,ih
Particular Reference to
the Naval Programme of
the United States. For
More Than a Century
america Has Led in
Submarine Construction

land people. having little to do with
ocean commerce, and, presumably, IN
heriting little aptitude for things nau-
teal. 1t is only within the last two
generations that Germany has branched
out into maritime activities and in
naval construction. 1t is only in the
last half century that she could be said
to be a naval power-for the little craft
composing the ancient Brandenburg
navy could hardly be dignifed by the
name navy.
On the other hand, the English al
ways have been a distinctively seafar-
ing race. inheriting a natural aptitude
for the sea. and we had reason to eX-
pect that they. and not the "land-lub-
berly" Germans, would have taken the
lead in developing the possibilities OF
the undersea boat. At the beginning
of this war England had seventy-five
submarines, France seventy. and Rus
STA thirty-five, a total of 100 undersea
craft. as opposed to Germany's thirty
and Austria's ten submarines. Not only
has Germany more than doubled her
number of submarines since the out
break of the war, but she has many
times increased their size, cruising ra-
dius and destructive powers. Further
more. her sailors have displayed an abil-
ity and fearlessness in handling these
craft that has astounded the maritime
world.
To be sure. England has not had an
opportunity to use her undersea boats,
as German war craft and merchantmen
have been securely locked in her ports
or interned in neutral harbors. In this
respect she is laboring under the same
disadvantage she experienced in our
war of 1812-15, when our swift-sail-
ing cruisers worked a destruction on
her commerce that was then unprece-
denied. Towhat extent England to-day
s using her submarines in fighting the
underwater craft of the Germans We
have no means of knowing definitely,
but one fact stands out clearly, namely,
that. notwithstanding her overwhelm-
ing prepOnderance in above-water war
ships and underwater craft she has not
been able. in the month Of February, to
prevent the destruction Of more than
100000 tons of her merchant marine
most of it in her own home waters.
This is a situation calling for the
most serious consideration on the part
of the American people. If England,
with the mightiest fleet Of superdread-
noughts, dreadnoughts and pre-dread-
noughts in the world, is unable to pro-
tect her comparatively small coast line
from blockade by German U-boats, what
chance would the United States have,
with her smaller number of dread
noughts, in protecting our vastly great
er extent Of coast line against similar
blockades? Instead of considering the
construction of an 80000-ton dread
nought at a cost OF $500O0,0O0, as has
been suggested in Congress recently,
would it not be better to determine,
once for all, whether or not dread
noughts (under the present and pro-
spective development of the submarine)
or any kind of above-water fighting
craft. are capable Of guarding our
coasts against submarine warfare?
Ten to fifteen million dollars is an
enormous sum of money to invest IN a
battleship which not only does not pro-
tect US from this new and insidious
form of warfare, but can be sent to the
bottom in few minutes by craft cost
ing less than half a million dollars.
For more than a hundred years
Americans have taken the lead IN sub
marine construction. At the time OF
our Revolution David Bushnell gave the