New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-05-06
A Suppressed Criticism

In considering the variety of criticism
lately directed against the British Ad-
miralty it is proper to bear in mind that
much of it is vitiated by political consider
atoms which have no possible bearing on
the vital point Of securing a more ade-
quate control of the sea. To distinguish
between DISTINGUISHED censure and cen
sure founded only on prejudices which
are unrelated to the naval situation is not
always easy, but in some instances it is
quite obvious that the motives Of the
critics are mixed.
1t is ridiculous that the problem Of deal
ing with the submarine menace should in
any way be COMPOUNDED with fractional diff
ferences in Ireland, but ON no other sup
position is it possible to account for some
of the recent clamor in England against
is no reason to believe that the navy is
dissatisfied with Sir Edward Carson. The
present system of naval administration
has undoubtedly many opponents, and the
opponents are not all agreed about the
reforms that are most needed; but the
best informed of them, even among those
who most resent the powers Of the First
Lord, have never had any particular quar-
rel with Sir Edward Carson.
There are disinterested critics, however,
who are impatient for quite different rea-
sons to effect reforms at Whitehall. Mr..
Arthur Pollen is one of them. A paper of
his dealing with the necessity of reor
ganization has lately been suppressed by
the censor. As it is impossible TO tell
what cause of offence there was in it, we
have no right to assume that the Board of
Admiralty were merely concerned in saw
ing themselves. The only clew to the drift
of his criticism is to be found in report
of conversation in one of the London
papers. According to this report. Mr..
Pollen when asked how long the food sup
plies of the country would last, replied:
at depends upon whether we attempt to
defend them or not" And to the further
question whether he had a plan in mind:
yes" he replied simply; put the navy
under people who will fight"
This is vague, but it apparently implies
that the present naval policy is too pas
sive. Perhaps Mr.. Pollen advocated
definite project which the Admiralty
thought it nadvsable to publish. This is
easily conceivable, because in the past he
has occasionally specuated on the posi-
biity of doing at sea something analogous
to what the British and French are en-
deavoring to do on land, the main ques-
ton being whether sufficient artillery
could be brought to bear on the German
coast in such sort as to prevent subma-
rines as well as surface craft from enter
ing or leaving their ports. As the gun
power of the Grand Fleet is evidently suffi-
cient, he has allowed his fancy to play
about the possibility of constructing an
unsuitable fleet, even at the cost of monop-
olzng the country's shipbuilding facilities
There is no clear evidence to show why
Mr.. Pollen's views were silenced by the
censor, but his own observations make it
plain that he is for a more aggressive sort
Of warfare, and it is not inconceivable that
in offering his suggestions he dealt with
some questions upon which the Admiralty
deem it expedent for the present to be
silent. In short, we are not justified in
taking it for granted that the censorship
was inspired by personal motives.