Evening star., 1928-01-29
MIR. PRO AND MIR. CON STUDY
AMERICAS NAVAL NEEDS
Question of Race" With Britain BObs
Up Continually Throughout
Comprehensive Debate.


concerned: Between 1908 and 1923 we
didn't complete a single cruiser. Our
cruiser program of 1916 was delayed be-
cause we went to work and built de-
stroyers to supply what Great Britain
needed most in fighting German sub
marines. But between 1908 ana 1923
Great Britain completed As cruisers and
Japan completed IA. Since and In
cluding 1923 Great Britain has COM
pleted cruisers and is building IA. and
Japan has finished 8 and is building 8.
In the same period We have completed
| 10 cruisers, are building = and have
appropriated for more. So that II
We compare the numerical strength In
cruisers built. building and appropriated
for since 1908. this is the result: Great
Britain, 64: Japan, 2s; United States ls.
Many Are Old Craft.
Said Mr.. Con: But we have more
than IS cruisers.
Said Mr.. Pro: Sure We have. We've
got the Olmypia, for instance. that was
Deweys flagship in the Spanish Ameri-
can War. and we've got the Rochester,
sons flagship of Santiago. The Olym-
| pia is out of commission, but the Ro-
chester is still steaming. We have 20
more of these old ships, but Is have
adopted the Coolidge motto-"1 do not
choose 10 run"-and are tied up and
out of commission. The seven others
are still limping from port to port.
About the only thing they are good for
| is TO go 70 Nicaragua. They are as
much out of date as 1917 Ford. They
wouldn't be worth 10 cents In tight
with modern ships. for they can't catch
anything and they can't run away from
anything. We can't use them in ma
| neuvers because they can't keep up
with the rest of the feet. So, you see,
we have only Is modern cruisers built.
building or appropriated for. We want
| IS new ones and 1t seems q large order
now because we put of buying any FOR
such long time.
| Said Mr.. Con: But we seem TO be get
| ting along very nicely with out 10 mod
ern cruisers and 6 old ones. And we
have 8 more ordered. What would we
do with these IS additional ones you are
arguing for?
said Mr.. Pro: For one thing. We
want to replace with these Is new
cruisers the ~ old ones that are all
shot. In the second place We want 70
catch up with what other navteS are
doing, because we've neglected that
business too long. It Is not compett-
ton, but simply to give US the strength
In cruisers that we need. II Great
Britain figures she can't get along with
less than 10 cruisers. why should you
kick when our naval people say we
need 43 cruisers? We could use these
new cruisers all right. We now have
an unbalanced leet-that Is. we have
enough battleshipS. deStroyers and SUBJ
marines, but we ought to have the
cruisers TO 60 along with them 70 make
them effective. Last Summer when we
had maneuvers We sent six cruisers
along with the feet, but when the
Nicaraguan and Chinese troubles broke
they had TO beat IL and left the feet
with no cruisers, except two acting as
hagShips for destroyer SouadronS. We
have a battlefield In the Pacific that
should have three cruiser divisions. The
battlefield has no cruiser divisions for
We haven't got the cruisers There's
no use talking about how to distribute
the cruisers. for II all depends upon
conditions. We might have % with the
feet, for instance. three guarding the
Atlantic and Pacific ports and the
Canal and Hawaiian zones six for con-
voy work and two with destroyer squad
rons. But all this might be changed
overnight. The British say there ought
70 be five cruisers for every three
,, battleships in a feet On that basis
| they have IS left for other uses. II
we put five cruisers TO every three bat
tieShips In the feet, we would require
so cruisers and the present program, II
carried out, would leave us only l3 for
other uses.
You ask what we would do with
tneSe cruisers. Right now In China and
in Europe we have destroyers TAXING
the place OF cruisers because we haven't
got the cruisers. The British contend
that naval power Is meant for world
VIDE distribution. Look at the British
| navy list and you1l find their cruisers
al over the world. But we can't dis
tribute ours around the world. Our
| cruisers, flying the flag, ought 10 be
entering foreign ports on visits Of good
VIII and friendship They don't. for
there are not enough OF them.
Great Britain Needs More.
Said Mr. Con: You keep on harpins
/ on Great Britain's feet In the first
| place. We are not going 10 fight Great
Britain. In the second place, she needs
more cruisers than we do. Listen 70
| what Representative French Of the sub
committee on naval appropriations Of
the appropriations committee said last
year. 80 Great Britain, more
/ than the United States Is In need OF
! types Of ships such as cruisers that are
! swift and Of widest radius OF ac-
/ ton Stop the lanes OF the
tea u the ships OF Great Britain and
| suffering would be brought 10 the peo-
| pie Of the British Isles within a period
/ u weeks and collapse Of the British
| Navy ~ fighting force would be q
matter of days. Turn 10 the United
! States. Our country could be cut on
hE ~ fkaz ~ hAW
would be TODD for our people. there
! would be fuel oil for our use. there
would be materials Of all kinds for our
! fsbricstt0n. The lanes VI the sea might
be closed 70 us for weeks or for years
should the neCskslty arise" Now then,
! That's from one III our own Congress
men. In view oi that. Why DO we need
all these crulsersf
Said Mr Pro: DO you remember when
the lanes II the sea" were closed 70
us IN 1914? We weren't At war But
| throughout the South there was suffer-
ing and want and great mountains Of
cGttGn lay piled in bales Ia the towns,
$500 .0D0, 900 worth u H.. Suppose the
lanes of the Eca were closed tomorrow.
not " our imports alone, but u our
ekpoTtsf Would there be no EuifeFine2 Z
In 1895 the United States imported
mare tban 81 100 900 900 worth of food
stuffs and exported 1894 600 900 worth.
We USED s2ee 900 900 more Ia food than
We 1yid American Industry now de-
pendE on something ike 81 800, ,000. 900
worth ~ ESSENTIAL imports every year.
Dues thai ioOk as II We are "a self-eon-
thined nation3 Is IL not hs important
that Ye keep the ianes NJ the sea open
fDT our tFaffic as that Great Britain
Keep them open tor hsFs2 Freedom of
the seas has been traditional with us
since our country was born. But
freedom III the seas IL not endangered
alone by our participation In n war
Any wSr endhnRers freedom u the seas
our rights a. g. neutral nation would
require protection Our Navy IL our
only protection