Evening star., 1920-03-22
j. s. NAVY Second
ONLY TO BR|TA|N'S;
PROGRAM GREATER
MondeIl Contrasts Plans as
Debate Opens on Naval
Appropriation Bill.

The United States Navy ana navy
program is larger than that of all the
world combined, except Great Brit
ain, and the British naval program is
the only one at all comparable with
that of the United States, House
Leader Mondell told the House today
when debate was started on the naval
appropriation bill.
NO other navy or naval program is
of a size or strength even remotely
approaching ours" he said. In fact.
since the practical wiping out of the
German navy all the remaining navies
and naval programs of the world, ex-
elusive of England, do not equal
ours"
Mr.. Monde1I outlined the naval plans
and programs of the only other ma
. tlon possessing navy of the first
class and compared England's an
nounced policy and expenditure with
ours.
Admiral Niblack gave the naval
affairs committee some interesting
and valuable information on this SUBJ
ject on February IA, but the latest
information we have is contained in
an Associated Press dispatch of
March 90" he said
According to this authority the
British admiralty proposes to spend
on the navy in the fiscal year 19202l
the sum of eS4 1922, 300, of which c12,-
600, 900 is for the iQuida tiOn of terminal
war expenses On the basis of the nor
NAL rate of exchange this means a total
expenditure of a trifie less than s420, ,000,
900, or about $4,000, 600 less than carried
in the bill. If. however. we reduce this
by the sum of f23000 600 or approx
imately Sis, 900, the amount pro-
posed to be applied to liquidation of
terminal war expenses we have $780,
000 900 as the total of Great Britain's
proposed expenditure directly on her
navy
This comparison does not. how
ever. tell the story as accurately as
a comparison based on the actual rate
of exchange. Based on the current
rate of s312 per pound the proposed
total naval expenditure amounts to
ahont s321 .o0O, 900. and this reduced
by the sum proposed for liquidation
of terminal war expenses leaves the
equivalent of approximately S24l. =
900, ,0OO as the total of Great Britain s
expenditure for her navy. compared
with s425.0O0000 carried in this bill.
, AT this rate our naval budget Will eX-
ceed England's by S184,000, 600.
Equally interesting is a compari-
son of the. size and strength OF the
Navy proposed to be retained in COM
mission by the two countries Ihe
enlisted strength of our Navy is fixed
by law at 131,485, and the bill before
US is based on an assumed average
personnel of 100000 Great Britain
proposes a naval personnel of 10000,
and | assume that is the number con-
templated by her estimates.
ships in Commission.
Admiral Robert Z. Coontz. chief of
naval operations. in his statement be-
fore the committee on naval affairs on
January Is, gave a list of vessels
which he believed should be kept in
condition or in reserve or in reduced
commission for the coming year,
which included seventeen dread
-I,~ h Il n
eight armored cruisers, eighteen
cruisers, 1873 submarines. IA destroy
ers and formidable list of auxiliary
ships totaling 800
'The admiral did not say Just how
much of this fiotilla would be kept in
active commission, but the list is very
interesting in view of the full COM
nfssioned fleet of Great Britain as
now proposed according to the Asso-
ciated Press dispatch above referred
to. This is to consist of sixteen bat
tIeships four battle cruisers, thirty
eight light cruisers. with destroyers
and submarines in proportion
From the above it would SEEM first,
that our program of naval expenditure
as provided in this bill. exceeds that Of
Great Britain by about $4,000 600, if
we figure the expenditure on the normal
rate of exchange and including S1I5,-
! 900 900 of their expenditure, which is
said to be for the liquidation of terminal
war expenses. If. however. the estimates
are compared on the basis of present
current rate of exchange. and we still
include Great Britain's expenditure for
the liquidation of terminal war ex-
nenses, our proposed expenditure is ap-
nroxirnately 800. .O00,0 900 above that of
Great Britain. If from this we sub
tract the sum above referred to for the
Jio,,idation of terminal war expenses our
proposed expenditure, based on the cur
rent rate Of exchange. is practically
s1sOO0O, 900 above the estimated ex-
nenditure of Great Britain.
Estimates on Personnel.
second. in the matter of personne
o,,r estimates are intended to provide
for 10000 men as against 1886 600 a:
the maximum for Great Britain.
Third, in the matter of the strength
Of the feet in full commission the
number of our contemplated line
would seem to be II dreadnaughts
IL pre-dreadnaughts. armoret
cruisers, is cruisers, and destroyers
submarines and auxiliary vessels il
nroportion. as against 16 battleships
battle cruisers. IS light cruisers
with auxiliary ships in proportion, OF
the part of Great Britain.
This comparison, of course. canno
he absolutely accurate, because. first
the statement is not definite excep
as to the major ships. and the state
ment of Admiral CoontZ, above re
ferred to. relative to our nava
strength may propose a larger fiotill;
iu commission than above suggested.