Las Vegas age. [volume] (Las Vegas, Nev.) 1905-1947, 1929-01-10


against the cruiser bill in the Unit
ed States, wave which does not
exist except in the fervid minds of
those who are seeking to stir it up
to the point where it shall become
accountable.
We are being told that the cruis-
ers are unnecessary and that they
will be construed by the European
powers as a backward step on our
part from the Kellogg anti-war
treaty. AS a matter of fact nothing
can be further from the truth. The
ships are necessary to our defense.
This is an opinion which Is con-
CURED in by all naval authorities
in the United States and by all
other persons who have studied the
situation calmly. No one Is more
interested in the success Of the
Kellogg plan than President Cool
idge, who is certainly a man Of calm
and mature judgment, not in the
habit of advocating the spending Of
the public money in any foolish or
reckless fashion. And the President
believes the cruisers should be built
and has SO indicated to Congress.
The only naval power in Europe
which could be seriously concerned
In the fifteen cruiser plan Is Great
Britain. And yet the British experts
well know that the fifteen cruiser
bill will not give us anything like
equal cruiser strength with Great
Britain. Furthermore, at the Wash
ington naval conference In 1921,
Great Britain accepted the idea Of
naval parity with the United States.
Under the circumstances, then, how
can the fifteen cruiser replacement
bill be regarded as a threat to the
peace of Europe or threat to any
thing for that matter2
We are told by many Of our more
effulgent and enthusiastic interna-
tionaliSts that we ought to accept
naval inferiority to Great Britain
because Great Britain'S great navy
is absolutely necessary to protect
her population from starvation In
case of war. Anyhow, they add, war
between the United States and
Great Britain is unthinkable. Now
if this is true and war Is unthink-
able then sufficient American
navy to look after our defense will
not do Great Britain harm.
AS q matter of fact Great Britain
does not consider her navy solely
a defensive, but an offensive in case
Of war. She uses 1t not only to keep
her own food routes open but to cut
off the supplies of her enemies and
reduce them as nearly as possible
to a state Of starvatiin. This Is not
said by way of criticism because
the first business in war Is to Grip
pie the other below as much as
possible. It will be remembered that
at the beginning of the World War
Uncle Sam and John Bull got into
serious difficulties because Great
Britain insisted on interfering with
our legitimate trade with neutral
nations on the theory that some Of
this trade was benefitting the en-
emy. This was done in violation OF
international law and more would
have been heard of it had not Ger
many committed the monumental
blunder of starting her submarine
campaign.
Now if Great Britain were con-
cerned only with her own food sup
ply the question could be solved by
an international agreement for real
freedom of the seas. But she does
not want real freedom Of the seas
as we learned when President VII
son tried to put this idealistic doc
trine into effect after the World
War.
Since Great Britain will not agree
to absolute freedom Of the seas It
must be that her first concern Is
not with her own supplies In time
of war but with the trade Of neutral
and enemy nations. If Great Britain
gets into war It will not be with the
United States. But if she becomes
entangled in combat with another
nation then the old questions Of the
early World War will arise again.
unless we agree to bow to Great
Britain's dictum on the high seas
then we must have a navy big
enough to protect our commerce.
It viii be the old story Of 1912 and
1927 over again.