The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1923-08-31
BRITISH PRAISE
FORFUL[AN
NAVYPLAN
Admiral Says American Is
Right in Declaring Big
Warships Obsolete.

LONDON, Aug. 31.-"I take my
hat off to Admiral w. F. Fullam,
Of the United States navy" was the
tribute paid today by Admiral Sir
Percy Scott, r. NJ, one of Britain's
foremost naval authorities, in dis
cussing the passing of sea power"
as exemplified in the dreadnaught
and as long practiced by England.
Admiral Fullam, in several articles
contributed to The Washington
Times, has advocated a three-plane
navy-commanding the air. water
and sub-surface-as the only sane
method Of naval strategy, following
lessons learned in the world war.
"His own country" said Admiral
Sir Percy Scott, Japan and our
own country owe him a deep debt of
gratitude for his common sense les
SON.
"He Fullam) means that the bat
tleShip is of no use and that the Eng
fish, Americans and japanese are
damned fools in building them, and
he smiles with contempt at our want
of brains in proposing to waste our
money on COCKS \LIlO DkAIASA 1i6V0A
basel at Singapore"
Admiral Scott, being retired, is
one Of the few outspoken men or
England on naval affairs, filling IN
some measure the voice that was
stilied with the death of Lord
Fisher, creator of the British navy
used in the world war. Scott con-
tinued:
tCA1-..1 T>,,II.-. 4, HE xyorxz 1alo
article says: Many admirals, in
Guiding the late Lord Fisher, Percy
Scott, Mark Kerr, S. S. Hall, Sir
Cecil Foley; and, of the American
navy, Admiral Sims, Fullam and
Fiske; Won Scheer, of the German
navy, and the French nation con-
slider battleships to be of no use
under modern conditions of war
fare.
Il have now, think, given
your readers sufficient information
to enable them to form their own
opinion as to whether battleships
are Of any use under modern con-
ditions of warfare
Millions Wasted, His View.
.'aThen why is the British tax
payer called upon to provide
9,OO0,O 900 of golden sovereigns to
build docks for them at Singapore?
"Mr. Darby Shire. M. P, who
knows Singapore well, says these
docks will cost 100000 instead
of 100000. All this money will
go to foreign labor.
when we are so overtaxed and
want money badly for our own
workmen and to relieve our unem-
ployment at home, this criminal
waste of money in a remote part
of the world is paradox that no
one can satisfactorily explain.
1--WE are building battleships and
no one knows what they could do
il we go to war. We propose build
ing docks at Singapore and no one
can state, and much less prove, the
necessity for them.
Lord Wimborne, in the house of
lords, raised the question of the
necessity of building docks for bat
tleships at Singapore. Lord Sails
bury in reply appeared to think
that battleships were necessary for
the protection of that port against
attack by an enemy's battleship.
Criticize Lord Salisbury.
This reply was almost as au-
dacious as the first lords state
ment that submarines have never
affected the free movements of the
fleet.
1.-THE first lord knew well when
he made that statement that sub
marines had sent many of our fleet
to the bottom of the ocean. Did
not that affect their free move
ment?
Admiral Sir Cecil Lambert char.
acterizes this statement by the first
lord as the greatest contradiction
OF all positive fact that a cabinet
minister has ever been made re-
sponsible for
Admiral Mark Kerr In com
menting on Lord Salisbury's re-
mark, points out that no battle
ship would dare to come within 200
miles of port protected by sub
marines, mines and aircraft"