Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-03

| wv aid, the former Labor pre-
| mier, was thinking prima-
rily of his British public and
the approaching general election, he
! bestowed upon the United States SEN
! ate the rather amazing warning that
passage of the naval bill would spoil
the effect of the kellogg pact, two facts
must be noted by all American observ-
| erS.
| First, one must recognize that the
| effect of his proposal is precisely the
| same as that of his Tory successors in
power So far every British proposal,
official and unofficial, would in effect
leave the American Navy in a position
of hopeless inequality The single diff
| ference between the arguments of Mr..
Macdonald and those of the Tories
lies in the fact that Mr.. Macdonald
is seeking to involve moral reasons for
1nsuring the permanence of American
inferiority.
Proposal Held Inconsistent.
The second point about the MacDon-
aid proposal is that it is totally incon-
sistent with his own record when in
/, power. The Labor government over
which he presided came into Office
| after an election in the last weeks of
1918.
! One of the very first measures he
presented to the new Parliament was
a bill for constructing five 10,00O-ton
| cruisers, the first Britairl-and I think
any country-had undertaken after the
Washington Conference, which ended
its work in the Spring of 1922.
! The measure was not party bill.
Macdonald did not have a clear ma
! jority in the House of Commons and
| the legislation was passed by combi-
nation Of Labor. Liberal and Tory mem
beers. But Mr.. Macdonald was not then
willing to run political risks, such as the
possible fall of his ministry to invoke
party discipline against the bill. He
actually stood aside and permitted the
passage Of the measure, which opened
the way to the creation of decisive
British superiority i'm the cruiser branch
! in poSt-WaShington craft. 1t is this
fact which makes it bit inconsistent
to say the least, for Mr.. Macdonald to
appeal to the American Senate to dis
play moral standard somewhat above
parity with his own.
Moreover, the example of the Labor
government in 1924 was eagerly fol-
lowed by the succeeding Tory ministry
of Baldwin. In 1925 the provision was
made for six new Washington cruisers
two charged to the Australian Navy &C
count, while the next year two more
were authorized, along with one 5000
ton cruiser, larger than any we had or
had authorized since the conference
Thus in three years the British pro-
gram now approaching completion
undertook to build thirteen 10,000-ton
cruisers and one 5000, in all IA ships
Of $4,000 TONS In this period we
built and authorized none.
Difference In Strength Cited.
We have today ten 7,000-ton cruisers
the only cruisers in our fleet which
have not become obsolete by age. We
also have eight building. Against the
10 pre-Washington cruisers of our
Navy the British have 40. Against
standard cruisers authorized after the
big British expansion begun under
If Mr.. MacDonald's proposal prevailed,
we should be limited to Is cruisers with
tonnage of 10000 against about
100000 tons of British cruisers dis
!; tributed among 81 ships. And in
| post Washington strength we should
| have 8 ships of 10000 tonnage
against Is British of 100000 tons.
| While the Washington ratio, fixed for
battleships and designed to extend to
i cruisers was SIS. between the British
| and ourselves. Mr.. Macdonald would
have us. for moral considerations. agree
| to a cruiser ratio about SIS in British
1 favor
Since there is at least strong prob
ability that Mr. Macdonald will be the
| next prime minister of Britain, Amer
leans must be prepared to meet this
| line of attack. What Mr.. Macdonald
I ic tof RI
| of naval equality which would be ar
rived at by the scrapping of British
F.! tonnage not become obsolete. No La
Dor government could survive in pres
| ent-day Britain which advocated any
such policy as Mr.. Hughes proposed at
Washington involving the Scrapping Of
| nearly quarter of a million tons Of
| new craft.
America Placed In False Position.
The real trouble in all the naval dis
cuSsion lies in the fact that the scrap
| ping of this tonnage placed us in
| hopelessly false position. At the close
Of the Washington Conference Great
! Britain outnumbered us in cruisers
! three to one. In the next few years,
the British proceeded to authorize
large number of new cruisers. while We
the mistaken impression that 1t had
obtained parity in all branches. Later
the Coolidge administration became
convinced that it could get parity with
out building. Thus while the British
were building Is standard cruisers, we
limited our efforts to talking and then
reluctantly undertook eight cruisers.
Unless we are prepared to accept the
principle that at any time when Great
Britain Is at war our commerce and our
merchant marine will be subjected to
regulation in accordance with British
interests, which amounts to accepting
dominion status, We must be prepared
to defend our rights with the amount
of cruiser as well as battleship tonnage
requisite. AS long as there is greater
advantage for the British In invading
our rights than in respecting them.
they will do as we have done and would
do under similar circumstances.
What Is hopelessly illogical about our
position is the continuing notion that
we can attain equality without con-
struction, that the British will obligingly
surrender a 3-to-1 advantage to please
America. There is no reason why they
should. and there is not the smallest
chance that they will.
Sees Sentiment for Big Navy.
But, of course, as even Senator Borah
has recognized. sooner or later the well
nigh unanimous sentiment of this
country will back proposition to give
us a navy which will take us out of
the prospective position of colony or
dominion, In case Great Britain IS in
volved in war. And every discussion
which ends without adjustment will
simply add to American and British
bad feeling and suspicion.
British policy at Geneva was stupid
in the extreme, because it haggled over
details with q country which always
possessed the power to construct not an
equal but a dominant navy. But Amer
can policy in perpetually chattering