Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-09-08

disputes and the greatest apostle OF peace
among the powerful nations Of the world !?
America lined up on one side, refusing
to cooperate for world peace, and all the
other nations lined up for what America
has heretofore championed.
FULLEST APPROVAL
FOR ARMS FARLEY.
Undoubtedly it was in recognition of
these facts that Senator Borah intro
duced a resolution in the Senate for a
conference between the three leading
powers, Great Britain, Japan and the
United States for the purpose of agree
ing upon a reduction Of naval ornaments
so as to prevent the criminal and waste
full competition in the building Of bat
/ tleships and naval craft which become in
large measure obsolete before they
can be put into commission. From the
outset | have strongly approved Senator
BOrah's proposal because 1t is practical BILE
! for those three nations to agree to stop
senseless naval competition and thereby
reduce the burdens of their ver-loaded
taxpayers. But the President has en-
Iarged the conference to six powers, Great
Britain, France, Italy, Japan, China and
the United States, and has broadened it's
scope so that political questions affecting
policies in the Pacific and the general
problems of disarmament, military as wen
as naval, will be discussed. Every citi-
zen hopes that great good to humanity
may come out Of this conference; that
concrete results will be obtained. 1t Is
to be regretted, however, that it was not
/ confined to the question OF naval arma-
ments as between Great Britain, Japan
and the United States, because agreement
! between these powers for reduction of
! their naval programs is attainable where
as agreement. on a program Of military
| disarmament does rot seem feasible with
! out bringing in the forty four nations
! already bound together in the league
| This great thing of reduction of naval
ornaments by agreement with Great
/ ri al aud To- 10 Nun
remain out of the league, and the United
States ought to secure IL regardless of
other questions that may come before
the conference.
Discussion of naval reductions brings
up the larger question-why should
| civilized nations have navies at all
! What would follow their complete
| abolition? Security, Of course, for every
| nation against hostile attack by sea OF
| water. Would not this be one of the
most powerful of all influences for peace
! between nations?
Are not navies the parents OF i'm
| perialism. Is il not through them that
| dominion over weak and detached peoples
has been maintained by the strong
powersI Have not navies been the chief
fundamentally through which the great
powers have competed with each other
In the exploitation Of the weaker nations
of the earth? Do not navies perform an
effective part in the economic warfare
1t is through powerful navles that the
great nations have gratified theii
predatory Instincts and imperial am
billions. If navies were completely
abolished by agreement between all the
powers the sphere Of possible warfare
would be reduced 70 contiguous States
| which would be unable to fight except
on land and such navies as were retained
would be confined TO small and light
craft necessary for police purposes and
for protection against smuggling and
/ other forms of lawlessness. 1t is no
more unreasonable TO seek an agreement
for the abolition of nayies than for a re-
duction of naval strength. Reliance
| would have to be placed upon the sacred
| obligation Of the contracting parties In
either case. Enlightened statesman
ship has been struggling for decades
! through the Hague conferences and
otherwise to limit the horrors of wal
! through the adoption Of certain rules OF
civilized warfare. 1t is generally agreed
that the unanchored floating mine and th'
| submarine, for instance, should be out
lawed. It is carrying the principle tC
| its logical conclusion to abolish navies
altogether.
|