Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-09-15
The Naval observer" Inquiry.

This week begins the inquiry by q
subcommittee OF the Senate committee
on naval affairs into the activities Of
the so-called naval expert who claims
to have acted at the naval limitati
conference at Geneva in behalf Of
shipbuilding corporations of this coun-
try. to the end of causing the break
down of that conference and the defeat
OF the American plan for an interna-
tional agreement in further limitation
Of ornaments.
Nothing quite like this situation has
ever been brought before q congress
sional investigating committee hereto
fore. In effect, the defendant, If he
may be 80 styled, is his own accuser,
for 1t was he who brought out the fact
Of his relationship with the shipbuild-
ing corporations, in q suit for compen-
sation claimed by him and denied by
the companies for the services rendered.
Had he not brought that suit 1t may
be doubted whether the case would ever
have come to the point of public knowl-
edge requiring immediate inquiry.
In this case the self-styled naval ex-
pert contends that he was rendering
legitimate services and that there was
nothing unpatriotic in his endeavors to
prevent the United States from contin-
uing the reduction Of its naval arma-
ment. He holds that it Is the right of
any American citizen to oppose reduc-
lions, to advocate and to work for q
larger rather than q smaller naval
establishment. On the other hand. 1t
Is felt and urged by many Americans
that granting this right Of the citizen
10 strive for the development rather
than the depletion of American naval
forces, 1t Is decidedly improper, indeed
1t Is almost reasonable, for any citizen
to hire himself out to work against the
adoption Of policies sought by the Gov
eminent to be put into effect through
international agreement.
1t Is one thing for an American
citizen in his own right as such to
argue and to work for the adoption of
o naval armament policy by the Con-
another thing for such a citizen to
work against the endeavors of his
Government before an international
conference. What may be perfectly
legitimate at Washington is inadmissible
at Geneva.
There is q sordid aspect to the ac-
tivities of the claimant for compensa.
ton by the Shipbuilding companies. He
goes to court to collect his fees, which
he claims are still unpaid. What price,
then, patriotism in such q case? Let
the acid test be applied. Would this
American have gone to Geneva on his
own. without hire, merely from patriotic
motives, to prevent an international
agreement in accord with this Govern
ments desire? 1t may be doubted. 1t
may with confidence be denied.
The shipbuilding companies named as
defendants in the claimants suit deny
any relationship with him beyond that
Of observer" This implies that he
was hired merely as a reporter of hap.
penings. Why? Were there no news
services at Geneva? Was there no
assurance Of getting the truth about
the situation? Or was there that to
observe" which would not bear dis
closure and public report?
These questions will be met and, it
ia hoped. fully answered by the in
vestisating committee. 1t has a wide
field Of exploration before 1t. and the
proceedings of this inquiry will make
mighty interesting reading"