davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

ours. In addition. we gave up our
right to fortify any Of our pos6
sessions in the western Pacific,
which means that In the Far East
our power now rs very low.
n II Il not true, however, that .
fortified Guam and . fortified
PHILIPPINES would threaten Japanf
A This IL not literally true. 1t
would not threaten Japan.
but would afford us bases to pro-
tect our own possessions in the
Far East. Without fortffications
In Guam and the Philippines. our
rights, interests and policies are
deprived OF military protection.
There In an excellent exposition of
this subject given by Rear Ad-
miral II. s. Knapp, U. 8. N, in an
address before the American So
ciety Of International Law, In
April Of this year.
n What should our present naval
policy be In both its building
program md persouneff
A Our naval policy is establish
ed by the Treaty. We should
build sufficiently in all classes OF
ships not limited by the Treaty to
maintain a naval strength not less
than Great Britain's and not less
than five-thirds times the strength
Of Japan. Our personnel should
be maintained on the same ratio.
n From what section Of the
country does the chief opposi
tion to an adequate navy come?
A From the farming States
OF the Mississippi.
a Do you believe that aside
from patriotic considerations
and for purely selfish reasons II is
10 the farmers interest to support
the treaty navyf
A most emphaticaIiy do.
We export over three billion
dollars' worth of farm products
annually. Mind you. that is sur.
plus that cannot be consumed in
the United States. Those three bill
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

the S-S-3 ratio. In q net pos
sible 10 state our personncl prob
lsn I'M neB4cchnicai language In
strad of sringing In aiscussisns
about ship compliments and shore
complements!
A Yes. The question is very
simple Twin leave out OF the
discussion our handicaps. but win
briefly mention them. Great
Britain has a tweive-year enlist.
ment; Japan has a stx-year enlist
ment and ccs scription; we have n
four-year enlistment. With this
tremendous turnover Il is difficult
to maintain our efficiency. and the
percentage Of our electives In less.
Disreganaing this handicap. the
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

n There arc many questions
W shout the naval treaty, cur
present naval condition and our
future naval policy ON which there
Is much haziness, due In part to
conflicting opinions I'm and out Of
Congress.
Who gained most By naval treaty,
and what did we gain or iosof
A From . moral standpoint the
United States gained most by
establishing the principle Of rmita.
ton of armaments by inter
national agreement. From . ma
teriai standpoint Japan gained
most, then Great Britain. We lost
In relative naval and sea power.
The 5-6-3-1.16-1.75 ratio was based
on existing battleship strength.
We recommended definite limits
In all classes of fighting craft and
offered to scrap our potential
navy, consisting Of the most
powerful feet ever laid down, and
on which we had already spent
one-third Of a billion dollars. No
agreement could be reached except
on capital ships and airplane
carriers. but this agreement
meant the scrapping Of our poten-
tial power. our capital ships,
which were already 90 far ad-
vanced that competition was out
Of question. In auxiliary craft.
such as cruisers. destroyers and
submarines. agreement could not
be reached. and We havs not
power In auxiliary craft equal to
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
THE PUZZLE PROGRAM.


built. France. Italy. Japan, Spain
and the United States are build
ing them. While America COM
pletes ships on the stocks. other
nations lay down entirely new
ships. Even Germany has laid
down a new cruiser.
At present there Is not single
modern cruiser in our navy and
only ten building. The naval ratio
OF 5-5.3 says that we should have
as many such vessels as England
and that Japan should have ~
per cent less.
But Japan has thirteen such
ships and is building eight others!
Not only this, but seven other
ships, including four vessels of
10000 tons, will be started soon.
This is not So but Sc to 2 with
the United States on the little end
OF the stick. England has fifty
three modern fast cruisers, which
gives her a ratio of 81 to the
United States. This is not 5-b-3. 1t
iR 5.1-3.
France has five modern oruis.
ers and In to build three others.
Yet her ratio In 1.76 to for tho
United States. Italy has sight
modern fast cruisers and is to
build two other ships. And her
ratio In LIS to for the United
States. The trouble with the
great 5-5.s idea 10 that n doesn't
mean anything.
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

best way to Investigate compliments
Of ships In q non-technical way In
TO compare our compliments with
those Of our nearest competitors.
Our compliments as established by
the Bureau OF Navigation are abou,
the same ss Great Britain's and
less than Japan's. IL our ships sre
ever 30 meet those Of another coun-
try in hattle. we are at . very great
DISADVANTAGE n We aus relatively
undermanned. OF relatively less
highly trained.
Again TO compare shore compile.
ments without going into detail re.
garding the necessity Of training
stations. trade schools. recruiting
and radio duty and other military
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
BY eraser SCHORNsTHEIMER,
Well Kno,rn Writer on Napal
Affnixs


A T the time Of the arms con.
~ ference we were told that
L naval competition had
been ended by the naval treaty
between the great powers. We
were told that the burden of Arma.
ments had been lifted: that taxes
would come down. But the proof
Of the pudding il In the eating.
Taxes have not como down. We
still have navies. There are wars
in all parts Of the world. Nations
are still competing with one an
other In armaments. More
money is being spent on navies
this year than during the year be.
fore the war.
Japan's expenditure for the
year 1922 will equal her expendi.
ture for the year before the great
war. Indeed, while the tonnage
under construction In about euual
to that building in 1919, the &C.
tual cost OF h,lilding In much
greater.
France has just inaugurated a
building program requiring about
1,ooo.oeo.ooo francs plus the regu.
lar maintenance expenditure. This
exceeds her prewar expenditure
by several millions. Italy's naval
expenditure for this year about
equals her prewar expenditure.
Russia 10 spending 20 per can,
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

posed, but no agreement could be
reached, except ON capital ships
and airplane carriers. There IL
now no limit on any other class OF
ships, and the competitive feature
still exists.
The capital ship 10 the backbone
OF the Navy. hut auxiliary ships,
auxiliary arms OF the naval serv-
Ice. play an essential part. and
with ships such as subnmrinss.
cruisers, iestroyers and airplanss
'uniimited, q navy can he strength
.ened by unlimited building In these
GLASSES so that the battleahip ra.
no would ibe very Tar from show.
Ing the actual naval strength.
IL was also hoped 10 establish
more cordial relations and o better
'unde rstanding 1esardins nattsnal
policies. Admiral Pratt has an cx-
'oeilent article on this subject I'm
the North American Review OF
May this year.
q Then st tho time 10 .re
thrs~fing away fhe onsthirsI
Of Q billioR Aollars speut On sur
own inaesdficient bafSle flest. we
arc actually 'bcifind our rHsis An
slaips MT now linaited9
A Yes, that 10 the condition,
except in the case OF deatroy-
ers. In which we are ahead Of our
ratio. It is an advantage 10 be
ahead OF our ratio In any type.
but destroycrs cannot replace orui-
sers.
q Yeu stste we arc ahead eG
our ratio I'm destroyers. but
Ia Il mt true that even flne ~
vantage IN this case has been
thrown away by placing most OF
them out sf cosnmissiens
A Yea. That 10 the case at pres
ent. II the ratio is to have
any significance, we must or courre
maintain personnel I'm this ratio as
well as material. An q matter OF
fact, personnel ratio IL Of greater
Importance than material ratio.
At tho present time ships In com.
mission are limited by personnel
available.
O. Arc No building sufficientiS
fast % innintsin Or regain
our proper ratio IN ships not linn
tied by tho Lmitstion Of Arms
Treaty.
A No. No new construction has
been authorised ance The
Treaty. Ten cruisers ana q few
submarines under construction
win be completed. We are losing
ground in our relative ratio.
q Tlere were many arguments
~ during the last Coneress
about what persennei We should
have 10 maintain the spirit q
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

Great Britain or five-thirds that
Of Japan. The real scrapping con-
sisted OF our thirteen capital ships
and the six capital ships laid down
by Japan. Great Britain had no
\ capital ships building, but was
allowed to build two new ones.
There was q general scrapping Of
'obsoiete and near obsolete ships
by United States, Great Britain
and Japan, but no great weight
should be assigned to these ships.
Japan gained most In thar we
not only scrapped thirteen ships
to her elk ships, but agreed not to
forttfy our possessions In the Far
East, thus making Japan far
superior IN that locality.
Great Britain was tho next
gamer In that we scrapped our
potential power, thirteen OF the
most powerful ships ever laid
down, while Great Britain not
only scrapped no such ships, but
was allowed to lay down and build
two new capital ships.
@ Did the United States gain
anything; and what did we
hope 70 gsinf
A In q military sense the United
States gained nothing. but
lost undisputed naval supremacy
already within her grasp.
It was hoped to stop the ex-
pense of competitive building by
having q naval holiday and limit
ing naval strength In al classes of
ships. This the United States pro-
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
5-5-3 PUZZLE, TROUBLEMAKER

because Of its heavy armor when
the battle cruiser cannot fight
at close range. The battle of
Jutland Proved what naval e1-
perts had an agreed. to-wit. that
battle cruisers were the eyes Of
the neet and the advance guard
which could sink other ships be-
fore ships Of slower speed could
answer their f1ra At the battle
Of Jutiand hardly any big ship
fighting was done At . range
Of less than 10000 yards. and
the greater part was at ranges
Of 1900 yards or mora sx-
tending MP to - high a. 10000
yards.
RATTLE CRUISERS ESSENTIAL.
For years the Americas navy,
growing strong IN dreadnaughts,
was regarded by experts a. weak
because Il possessed no battle
cruisers. After long debate and
much confederation. Congress in
1915 voted money for the con.
struction OF battle cruisers and
NO money for new dreadnaughts.
That action expressed the thought
OF the country a. to naval needs
at that time, and In 1916 the
three-year program authorized
other battle cruisers. regarded as
essential II the American fleet
was to be as TT as the British
or the japanese fleet. The world
war proved that the ships with
short range guns and slow speed
were always defeated by the
longer range guns and Of faster
speed. The best speed that can
be gotten by a dreadnaught is
20 knots. The battle cruisers
under construction by the navy
Of the United States viii make
1925. In a fight. therefore. be-
tween q dreadnaught and a battle
cruiser, with guns Of equal range,
the cruiser would fire its great
guns and speed out Of range of
the areadnaught before Il could
get In a shot.
THE 5-S-3 FICTION.
The Washington conference wa,
stampeded by the spectacular and
puzzle-sounding proposition Of
b-b-3. Some thought Il was a
riddle, some thought It had "A
"cabalistic" sound, and others
thought the United States dele
cation would not present a propo-
sition that would place this coun-
try at q disadvantage. But that
Is exactly what they did. The
b-5-3 puzzle is not yet solved. Our
delegates sacrificed American
present naval strength knowingly.
But they believe the sacrifice
was justified because within a few
years Britain's strength would be
reduced and these two great Eng
lishspeaking nations would stand
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
JAPAN AND ENGLAND
WON ALL AND GAVE
NOTHING AT FARLEY
United States Gained Morally, but Other Nations
Submitted to Few Cuts That Sacrificed
Their Particular AdVantages-Naval SHprem-
acy Within Grasp of United Safes Was Lost.

lion dollars worth OF products have
no protection once they leave our
shores, except what can be given
by the navy. II those three billions
are to be not protected. so they can
reach their foreign destination. the
farmer is ruined. Trade compet-
tion has lead to more wars than all
other causes combined. The de-
struction Of our fleet In a single
battle would be followed by a
blockade that would stop every
pound Of export at our door step
The scout learned this in the
civf war when the blockade closed
every port and ruined the confed-
eracy. II the battle Of Jutland had
destroyed the British fleet the war
would have ended In Gerrnany's
favor there and then. The farmer,
with his three billion OF exports, is
paying about 25 cents per capita
for the support Of a navy. It is an
insult TO his intelligence to tell him
that he has no interest In his pro-
ducts once they are sold to his vii.
iage buyer. He lives by what he
exports and his only assurance that
he win continue to live and export
lies in the protection Of an ade-
quate navy.
The miner and the manufacturer
are Of course as directly concerned.
Our exports In 1921 were over six
billion dollars. 1t Is high time that
our agricultural districts, ard l
come from one Of them, study this
question: they win realize the fact
that we are no longer self-con.
tained and self sufficient. Our pros
perity is absolutely dependent on
our ability to market our SIX billion
dollar surplus abroad.
What cannot be consumed at
home or sold abroad is worthless.
Great Britain is forced to maintain
a great fleet in order that she mny
import food on which to live. We
are equally obliged to maintain a
great fleet in order that we may ex-
port our surplus and prosper.
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
By JOSEPHUS DANIEL S

nations. IL to be encouraged. but
the decision to scrap the six battle
cruisers, leaving the United States
with none, Great Britain with six,
and Japan with eight, was a blum
der that justice to our own country
should never have permitted TO
have been made. II may be said
that, in view Of the friendly rela-
tons between this country and
Great Britain and Japan, there is
no danger in permitting them TO
have this disparity in the fastest
and most costly ships afloat. But
IL this is accepted as q correct
policy, why did we insist upon the
5-5-3 ratio and regard 1t as a fetish?
Why should we demand our equal
number Of dreadnaughts and sink
all our building battle-cruisers and
agree that Great Britain and JapaN
should keep battle-cruisers, while
we should have none at allr This
is a hard question to answer for
those who blandly decreed the de-
struction of all our cruisers.
WHERE SCRAPPING Is GAIN.
The scrapping OF ships with
short-range guns. like the Iowa
class. was a distinct gain. They
cost money for maintenance and
could not fight long.range ships.
This country has saved something
like $s5.000,000 a year for three
years by scrapping. but II has
surrendered the supremacy OF the
sea by the failure to continue
the construction Of it's battle
cruisers, upon which It had nj.
ready spent many millions Of dol
= lars. There is nothing less ralu.
able than an old outranged bat
tleship except a last years birds
nest, and the cheapest and quick.
est way TO get rid OF them IL
to use them as targets or send
them to the bottom OF the sea
a la the German fleet at scapa
Flow.
When I was in Paris in the
early part OF 1919, the question
Of what to do with the German
surrendered fleet In captivity at
Scapa Flow was uppermost.
told Lloyd George that the Amer.
lean navy's idea was to send
them all TO see and sink them
In mid-oeean. Yes" he said,
''let them all sail out. and let
them be sunk ostentatiously ~
the allied bands play their ma.
tional airs"
1T Is A CRIME.
Our ancient ships should meet
that fate. hut with honor,
But our new battiecrufscrs
under construction--it ls n crime
to demoiish them,
The SIS puszie rlses ny TO
trouble US.
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

. point as IN the range. And the
guns OF our Constitution land FIVE
other cruisers ordered scrappedl,
being fivs calibres longer, and Of
higher muxzle velocity. would cas-
lily outrange those Of the Hood,
and this alone would give supsr1;
ority in action.
JAPAN AND ENGLAND ALLIES
II we had been permitted TO fur.
ntsh the battle cruisers under con.
struction when President Harding
called his conference last Novem.
Der the United States would have
possessed six first line battle
cruisers, totaling 261 900 tons;
Great Britain six. totaling l7s,eOo
tons, and japan eight, totaling
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
<(TXT HEN are ysu going to
'" begin sorappans the
gtant dreadnaughts

nnkN ~ yvu BU1n1 70
" begin sorappinS the
~ giant dreadnaughts
ana the greater battle oruissrsf"
II ysu Win - into the Navy
Department ana ask that question
sf any rsspenstbis admiral Or CAP
tain. you Win find out what he
thinks ef a. least enc part sf tho
vsrt sf the washinEton confer.
sncA That ~ you VIII finA cut
the rssl sentiment sf the navy II
tbs officer addressed fssls fres to
talk.
EHrst ef IN. yvu WIN ina that
whils much preliminary work has
bssn un6srtalesn. IN pursuanos of
orders higher up. no actual sout-
ding OF sinking or destruction is
sotns On. Il win not 20 on untfl
Deremptery orders are given and
tho date sef for destruction. When
the direct order comes Down, tho
sffiosr assigned to the unpslatable
task wfii sfvs an AN. aye. s1r."
but not . cheerful one. Each
sffiosr concerned win rather - to
the Job with the words;
Il have been TO the funeral Of all
my hopes
And entombed them one BY enc"
DEPENDING ON OUR LUCK.
They viii make . perfect Job Of
the sad duty. but no man in the
navy can be found who does not
feel that the decree OF destruction
Of the battle cruisers was the
monumental mistake of the Wash
ington conference. And well in
formed civilians agree with them.
am not now speaking for
Secretary DENLY and Assistant
Secretary Roosevelt. 1 have had
no talk with them. They. viii
carry out the will Of the Admins
tration and hope the luck will
fall to disclose the mistake of
making the American navy In
ferior to the British navy and
the Japanese navy in the type
OF ship which has the greatest
speed and carries the heaviest
guns. But II no harm comes
from the renunciation Of equality
on the sea by the United States,
II will be due to our luck rather
than to our wisdom.
EQUALITY IN NAME ONLY.
The United States has no battle
cruisers afloat. They are the
biggest. the fastest and In certain
emergencies the most essential
element OF a powerful naval feet.
At least Great Britain and
Japan thought 30 when they con.
structed them while we stuck to
dreadnaughts. OF course, the
dreadnaught. with slower speed,
can stand more punishment and
stay IN the fight at close range
The Washington times., 1922-09-24
STATES, ALREADY HEAVY LOSER BY ARMS TREATY, VI
RAPIDLY BEHIND i'm NAVAL RATIO O. KID BY CONFERENC

activities. Great Britain maintains
about 10 per cent of her penonnsl
on shore, ana Japan, II she fully
mans everything she can retain
under the Naval Treaty. win have
about rs per cent OF her men ief1
for shore duty; we estimate 33 l-3
per cent On necessary. II there is
any criticism on this lire. Il b that
our navy is too economical IN men,
In Its recommendation and prac.
tice.
n How many mem shs1ld We
hagee
A Not less than Great Britain
and not less than five-thirds
the number mainfaiaed BY Japan.
This formula would give uf not
less than l2S.eoe men. There may
be conditions that require ne to
maintain more men, one being our
handicap mentioned, but In any
possible case this formnia win give
IN the absolute minimum.
The Secretary OF the Navy stated
before the last navy hill passed:
-'since the strength Of the fleet
depends almost enttrely on the eff
cheney of its operation. II the $50
ratio In 20 have any Significance,
We must maintain the ratio in per.
sonnel an well as I'm material. The
number OF men recommended for
next year is n compromise IN the
immediate interests OF economy
and should not be taken as q prece-
dent"
a what should our building pro-
gram be,
A II we are going TO preserve
the 5-S-3 ratio. we must make
this ratio the basis OF our building
effort In an classes OF fighting
ships. We must keep pace with
the building programs Of Great
Britain and Japan-the s+ss ratio.
n Ii II understssd tisst We are
~ short Of men necessary 10
maintain the spirit q the S-5-3
ratio by af least the difference be-
tween 1890 and Ies 80 mea. but
We sre IN . material way m ssrsng
as Grest Britain and i've thirds ms
strong N Japanf
A No. Sea-power IN measured by
three factors. a. navy, (2)
naval and commercial bases. and
CD merchant marine.
Great Britain 10 superior In her
navy. having q much larger mum.
Der OF cruisers than we have. She
In far superior IN bases. having
bases throughout the world, and
Car superior In her merchant ma
rine.
Japan, although three-fifths as
strong as we are In capital ships,
Is superior In cruisers and has a
building program much larger than
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

10000 tons. A. Il IL the ratio
as to number win be:
Great Britain. .............
Japan
United States. ......".......
And yet, with the ratio Of battle
cruisers, there In a belief widely
and erroneousiy held that the
naval ratio is s-5-s. When II is
reflected that Great Britain and
Japan are allies. this preponder-
ance is all the more marked and
to be regretted.
THE PUZZLE PROGRAM.
The completion OF those ships
would have put our cruisegs in a
class distinctly superior to any
afloat. When the 5-s-s puzzle pro-
The Washington times., 1922-09-24

gram decreed their destruction, 1t
gave superiority in speed and
power to England and Japan. 1t
left them with fast cruisers and
compelled US to destroy those
under construction. II It had made
US have the 5-5-3 ratio, as the peo-
pie supposed, the plan would have
been approved permanently. AS
1t was, It was hailed gladly under
a Misrepresentation. and as II is
disclosed to put our navy in third
place as to speed and giant
cruisers. the people have come to
agree with the naval officers who
do not wish to scrap those great
ships.
GOOD REASON FOR DELAY.
There is good reason why the
Navy Department delays the proc
ess Of demolition in addition to its
feeling that a great mistake is
being made. Neither France nor
Italy has ratified the Washington
agreement. 1t Is understood in
Washington that France will ratify
in the early autumn, and II Is be-
lieved that Italy waits on action by
France, these two nations watch
ing each others movements in the
Mediterranean. Congress, in appro-
priating money for destruction,
gave power to begin scrapping as
soon as the formal exchange of
ratifications takes place. 1t will be
sad day for the navy when that
day comes. The days OF delay are
welcomed.
WILL COST s1s, ,ose. go.
An additional reason for objec.
tons to the scrapping Is that the
cancellation of contracts will cost
10000. 600. This is 4 big item to
pay for no return in naval strength.
The contractors have put In their
claiYs for payment for expenses
and the profits they would have
made, or a part Of the profits, IL
the ships had been completed. The
total estimated cost IL all the ships
under construction when the 5-5.3
shibboieth sont them to their doom
was ss4s,sse.eeo. Approximately
100000 had already been sp-
propriated for that purpose. II was
estimated that sss2 2.sse. 900 more
would have been required. The
United States would have had the
fastest ships afloat, with the long
est range guns. And now II must
spend s7e, 200 900 for which Il gets
nothing At all. Therefore, deduct.
ing that s7o,ooo,0oo we must pay
contractors In stopping. the add.
tionsi cost to give the United
States the strongest navy In the
world would have been s2s2 ZOO. 900.
Disarmament by agreement. with
an understanding for peace by the