Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-01-25
Anglo American Sea Rivalry.

With his genius for getting down tt
fundamentals, Senator Borah goe:
straight to the crux of Anglo-Americar
naval difficulties when he advocates re-
vision of maritime law Yesterday, ir
opening the Senate cruiser debate, the
foreign relations chairman proposed ar
amendment dealing with that vita,
issue.
1t would place Congress on record In
favor of "a restatement and recodifica
ton NJ the rules Of law governing the
conduct of belligerents and neutraIs in
war at sea-" The Borah amendment
further proposes that such action be
taken before the reconvened naval con-
ference of 1881.
The Idahoans suggestions were
promptly accepted by Senator'S who
favor the cruiser bill Their approval
is logical. Nothing in the Borah pro-
posal suggests the superfiuity of ade-
quate American naval strength. On
the contrary. the amendment points
directly to the necessity of maintain
ing IT..
Until sea law is restated so as to
guarantee the rights of the United
States. either as a belligerent or as a
neutral. elementary common sense re-
qu1res that our Navy be kept powerful
enough to safeguard them. The time
to emasculate the American fleet will
come when our status on the high seas
Is so definitely fixed by international
law that cold steel will never have to
be invoked to protect it.
Senator Borah envisagesa naval COM
petition with Great Britain as some
thing now practically in being. States
men on both sides of the Atlantic may
disclaim any such purpose, but in effect
that contest is in progress. British-de-
mands for cruiser tonnage which the
United States is unwilling to concede
may not mean that John Bull and
Uncle Sam are building against each
other. But it certainly means that they
are at least operating with an eye
vigilantly peeled in each others direc-
tion.
There Is not likely to be general
agreement with Senator Rorah,s con-
esusion that the way to arrest naval
rivalry with our British friends is for
America to stop building. He thinks
IL would be salutary thing to author
lie, rather than actually construct, the
proposed fifteen cruisers. The purpose
would be to enable the United States
70 refrain from laying down the ships if
In the meantime there were prospect
Of reaching limitation agreement with
Great Britain.
No Briton alive conceives the possi-
eility Of anything but national bank
Tuptcy IN genuine naval trace" with
she United States. Forty or fifty
years ago" writes an English econo-
mist In Foreign Affairs for January,
perhaps we could have sustained such
competition. Today we would be
foolhardy to enter upon it." Yet it Is
well known that many Britons are per-
suaded that between the Scylla Of econ
onay and the Charybdis of pacifsm,
Americans are unwilling to pay the
price of national security at sea.
Would not the genuine commence
nnent Of fifteen-cruiser building pro-
gram, even If later it had to be aban-
Goned, be an object lesson bound tn
command British respect? Would 1t
not incline London in the direction of
Ahat freedom of the seas" which Sena-
tor Bcrah justly espouses. but for which
wave-ruling Britannia hitherto has not
been visibly enthusiastic?
Ships. like money, talk.