Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1922-05-02
PACE EIGHT. E


the House of Congress in behalf OF
a naval personnel of $4,000 men, in
stead of the $4,000 men advocated in
the naval reduction bill, was made
by Congressman Chas. R. Crisp, OF
Americas, on Friday, April Ia, just
before the passage of the $4,000 men
provision. His speech, brief as it
was, gives an excellent impression of
the high Americanism of Judge Crisp
in considering matters affecting the
national welfare and distinct from
party interest. His speech is re-
produced from the Congressional Re-
cord, and follows:
"Mr. Crisp. Mr.. Chairman have
never been a militaristic man; have
always opposed large army, but have
favored a big navy. Large armies
sometimes Prussianize country, but
large navies never do this. | favor
sweeping reductions in the army, for,
if we maintain a sufficient corps OF
trained officers, in time of trouble
we can soon equip any army OF the
finest soldiers in the world. Our coun-
try is fortunately situated geograr.li-
cally, with an ocean between us and
any country that might jeopat1iZe
our national security and defense. 1t
American rights and American sccrr-
ity is ever assailed, the foe must come
from across the sea; therefore ] have
always believed that America should
have the best navy of any country in
the world: (Applause.)
Mr.. Chairman, / am not familiar
with the technical deals and needs
of the navy or how many men 1T takes
to equip and maintain ships in COM
mission. | can truthfully say that l
have the greatest love for the gentle
man from Michigan (Mr. Kelley but
/ do not think than ne knows any
thing more about the navy or the
needs of the navy than does the gem
tleman from Tennessee (Mr. Pad
gett), who for eight years was chair
man of the committee on naval at
fairs. They differ Numerically as
to the number of men required to
maintain a navy on the 5-5-3 ratio.
The gentleman from Michigan { Mr..
Kelley in speech stated that $4,000
men authorized by the appropriations
committee bill, will maintain our navy
on basis of the ratio of 5-5-3 and
give us practically as many men as
are in the English navy. The gentle
man from Tennessee (Mr. Padgett),
who is a profound student of the ma
vies of the world, disputes this. In
speech on the floor of this house ne
said:
Now, the British navy and ma
rine personnel, not including reserves,
for the fiscal year ending March 81,
1923, officers and men, 98,5O0; col
onial navies, 1929; also one-third OF
the aviation personnel were cooper
ating with and constituted part of
the naval personnel, 1860; making
a total of 117,758. There is no in
formation of the number of men in
the naval communication service,
naval recruiting service, or the Royal |
Indian Marines. They are not count
ed in the 117,758. l want to call at
tention to another matter. England |
mad a reserve on January /, 1922, of
icers, 1882; men, $500, making a !
.otal of 49,130. They are not count !
ID in the figures / gave moment ago.
And yet what? They opsrats 80 |
pliers, repair ship and / supply
ship. In other words, those reserves |
operate 81 ships and are not counted |
n their 117,758. Add the 3S,808 to !
your 117,758 and you have got 1885,,
$50 men in the British navy availa-
Die to operate their ships. And yet |
hey come before this congress and |
say that with our $1,000 that may be
provided by this bill and our 1880 !
marines we have got as many as the |
British have, but you can not make !
he figures tell any such tale as that.
ut is frequently said here in debate
hat we can not pay any attention or