The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-01-17

by the multiplying interpretations of foreign govern
ments and the senate. If any American navy is
justified, it should equal the British.
The administration argument that this cruiser bill
does not mean naval race with Great Britain is
equally misleading. Our navy is already supreme
cept for Great Britain. If Great Britain had ac-
copied our limitation proposals. there would be no
cruiser bill today.
Anglo-American rivalry is the most regrettable
and dangerous element in the present international
situation. But that danger be avoided only by
facing the fact, not by Disgusting it.
BY disgusting the truth regarding increased Anglo
American economic and naval rivalry, well-meaning
officials have produced mystery out of which GER
tain admirals and senators magnify the danger
Hence the rush to get fifteen new cruisers and an
aircraft carrier Immediately.
Though President Coolidge, in asking the senate
to drop the time construction clause from the bill
and thus authorize only paper ships for bargaining
purposes, admits there is no immediate emergency.
The facts are clear. Our government has tried
for years to persuade Great Britain to grant
cruiser parity. AT the Washington arms conference
we granted Great Britain capital ship equality and
scrapped our superior tonnage. In return we ex-
pected her to grant cruiser equality and to scrap
her superior cruiser tonnage.
has built cruisers She has attempted a virtual
alliance with France to limit our cruisers without
restricting their own.
Therefore, our government, after sharp diplomatic
notes and the Presidents warning address on Arms-
tice day proposes more American cruisers to force
Great Britain to accept equality Whatever name the
administration may give it, this threat It is
considered abroad
If there is to be naval race, Great Britain has
provoked it. No one honestly can challenge the right
of the United States to build these cruisers.
But the question is one of practical result not of
right. nation not always preserve the peace by
asserting its rights. That did not provoke the
armament would not make it any less disastrous.
Americas definite aim is to further peace and
prosperity by prompt naval limitation Can any
doubt that an agreement secured by friendship would
be better guarantee of lasting peace than
forced by threats. however provoked?
The friendly method has not been exhausted.
America afford to be patient while longer. The
Washington naval revision conference will not be held
until 1881. Much can happen meanwhile.
For the American people want a friendly naval
agreement no more earnestly the British people
Both peoples wish to avoid an armament race Only
the British admiralty stands in the way. The British
Liberal party the Labor party, and many members of
the Conservative party, are opposing the admiralty
policy This is of the principal issues in the pres
ent British election campaign
Nothing would play into the hands Of the British
admiralty well passage of our cruiser bill. Moth
ing would be so certain to defeat the efforts of the
British people Nothing would make SO sure an in
sane armament race
If the admiralty has its way in Great Britain, we
will build fifteen cruisers and many more We have
the money and the men We beat Great Britain
in an armament contest
But We do net want to beat Great Britain We
want only equality. And we do not want that by
threats if We can get it by friendship Threats mean
future trouble; friendship means future peace.
The cruiser program be postponed without
danger to any American interest And if the British
people given time to act competitive building
program ever may be necessary.
David Dietz on Science