Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-09
The Naval Program.

Representative Fred Britten, chair
man of the House naval affairs commit
tee. and Representative Burton L.
French of Idaho. chairman of the House
naval appropriations subcommittee, are
about to lock horns over the proper ma
val building program for the United
States under the new London naval
treaty. Mr.. Britten is introducing in
the House today bill proposing pro-
gram, which, he declares, is necessary
if the United States is TO have parity"
with Great Britain, as provided In the
treaty. 1t contemplates an expenditure
of nearly half billion dollars, which
taken in conjunction with construction
already authorized will bring the expend-
itures UP to little less than billion
dollars In the next ten years. Mr..
French, who handles the money bags,
does not believe that such a large ex-
penditure is required at this time. In
fact, Mr.. French is reported to hold that
about one-third of the construction pro-
posed by Mr.. Britten in the next six
more conservative program.
Mr.. Britten has been one of the critics
of the London treaty. In fact, Mr..
Britten has been aligned with the big
Navy group which is more intent upon
building up the Navy than it is inter-
ested in agreements for limitation of
naval armament. And now Mr.. Brit
ten is coming forward with a proposal
calling for an expenditure which nee
essarily will give many Americans cause
to wipe their eyes and ask themselves
whether, after all, the London treaty
is desirable pact. Beware the Greeks
bearing gifts" may, however, be trans
posed to Beware the big Navy group
seeking to carry out the naval agree
ment." Mr.. Britten and some of his
friends may have in mind the old adage
which holds there are more ways than
one to kill cat. A cat, it was said,
may be choked to death with cream.
1t looks very much as though this was
the plan In the back Of Mr.. Britten's
head when it comes to dealing with the
London naval treaty.
The London treaty provides for par
ity with Great Britain. That is as it
should be. But 1t is folly for Mr..
Britten to urge that this country should
undertake to bring about such parity
within brief period when the neces-
sary expenditures would cause a deficit,
in all probability, in the Treasury and
cause an increase in the Federal taxa
ton. The object of the London Naval
Conference was to help in bringing
about lessening of the tax burdens on
the people by reducing expenditures for
the Navy. The United States notori-
ously has been letting naval construc-
ton slide since 1922, when the, WASH
ington treaty was written. It has Jagged
in naval construction behind Great
Britain and Japan. To bring the
American Navy to parity with that Of
Great Britain Immediately would entail
huge expenditures. Mr.. Frenchs more
conservative idea, looking to gradual
upbuilding of the Navy until parity is
reached, is more appealing. Further
more, there is the chance that by 1886
there may be new agreement reached
looking to still further reduction Of the
navies.
Americans have demanded naval
parity with Great Britain. 1t is likely
to be costly proposition at best. For
Britain relies upon its navy to safe
guard its national life. Under present
world conditions no one will blame the
British for this attitude But surely.
If slowly, the peoples of the world are
looking with more and more favor upon
the substitution of peaceful settlement
Of international differences for war.
And eventually the seed which has been
sowed in the Washington and London
Naval Conferences Is likely to bring q
much greater reduction in naval arma-
ment. With this in view, the more
conservative plans for naval construc-
ton advanced by Mr.. French are likely
to find favor with millions of Americans.