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

One OF the best speeches. made Il
the House of Congress in behalf o
naval personnel of $4,000 men, in
stead of the $4,000 men advocated il
the naval reduction bill, was made
by Congressman Chas. r. Crisp, Of
Americas, on Friday, April Ia, JUS
before the passage of the $4,000 mer
provision. His speech, brief as il
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 militaristic man; / have
always opposed large army, but have
favored 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 geograPAI-
cally, with an ocean between US and
any country that might jeopar1iz@
our national security and defense. 1t
American rights and American secIr-
itv 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
| 90 not think than he knows any
thing more about the navy or the
needs of the navy than does the gen.
tleman from Tennessee (Mr. Pad
gett) who for eight years was chair
man of the committee on naval al
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 a speech stated that $4,000
men authorized by the appropriations
committee bill, will maintain our navy
on a 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,
1928, officers and men, $500; col
onial navies, 1928; also one-third OF
the aviation personnel were cooper
ating with and constituted a part of
the naval personnel, II ,969; making
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
had reserve on January /, 1922, of
ficers, 1882; men, $500, making a /
total of 49,130. They are not count
ed in the figures | gave moment ag".
And yet what? They op .rats 80
oilers, / repair ship and l supply
ship. In other words, those reserves
operate 81 ships and are not counted
in their l17,75S. Add the 38,808 to |
your III, 1853 and you have got 1885, |
$50 men in the British navy availa-
bic to operate their ships. And yet |
they come before this congress and |
say that with our $1,000 that may be |
provided by this bin and our 1880 |
marines we have got as many as the |
British have, but you can not make |
the figures tell any such tale as that, |
1T is frequently said here in debate |
that we can not pay any attention or