Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-07

lows.
I'm requesting the Senate to convene
in session for the special purpose of
dealing with the treaty for the limita-
ton and reduction of naval armament
signed at London April %, 1880, 1t is
desirable that / should present my views
upon 1t. This is especially necessary
because of misinformation and mis-
representation which has been wide
spread by those who in reality are
opposed to all limitation and reduction
in naval arms.
I'VE must naturally expect opposition
from those groups who believe in I'M
restricted military strength as an
objective of the American Nation. In
deed, We find the same type of minds
in Great Britain and Japan in parallel
opposition to this treaty. Nevertheless,
I am convinced that the overwhelming
majority of the American people are
opposed to the conception of these
groups.
Our people believe that military
strength should be held in conformity
with the sole purpose of national de-
Tense. They earnestly desire real
progress in limitation and reduction of
naval arms of the world and their
aspiration is for abolition of COMPETE
ton in the building or arms as a step
toward world peace. Such a result can
be obtained in no other way than by
international agreement.
Safeguards in Treaty.
THE present treaty is one which
holds these safeguards and advances
these ideals. It's ratification is 1 n
the interest of the United States. It is
fair to the other participating nations.
1t promotes the cause of good relations.
THE only alternative to this treaty
is the competitive building of navies
with all its flow of suspicion, hate, ILL
will and ultimate disaster. History
supports those who hold to agreement
as the path to peace. Every naval
limitation treaty with which we are
familiar. from the Rush-Bagot agree
ment of 1917, limiting vessels of war
on the Great Lakes to the WASH
ington Arms treaty of 1921, has re-
suited in marked growth of good
will and confidence between the ma
tons which were parties to it.
ut Is folly to think that because
we are the richest Nation in the world
we can outbuild all other countries.
Other nations will make any sacrifice
to maintain their instruments of de-
tense against us, and we shall eventual
ly reap in their hostility and ill-will
the full measure of the additional bur-
den which We may thus impose upon
them.
Refers to Europe in 1914.
"The very entry of the United States
into such courses as this would in
vite the consolidation of the rest of
the world against us and bring our
peace and independence into jeopardy.
We have only to look at the state of
EllrO1a n find
OF the tut lily and danger of COMPETE
ton in arms.
1T will be remembered that in
response to recommendations from the
Senate conference between the United
States, Great Britain and Japan, for
limitation of those categories of naval
arms not covered by the Washington
Treaty OF 1921 was held at Geneva in
1927. That conference failed because
the United States could not agree to
the large size of fleets demanded by
other governments. The standards set
up at that time would have required an
ultimate fleet of about 400 900 tons
for the United States. AS against this
the total United States feet set out
under this treaty will be about 1,123, 900
tons.
Defense is the primary function of
government, and therefore our first con-
Germ in examination of any act of this
character is the test of its adequacy in
defense. No critic has yet asserted that
With the navies provided in this agree
ment, together with our Army, our
aerial defense and our national re-
sources, we cannot defend ourselves, and
certainly we want no military establish
ment for the purpose of domination of
other nations.
Defense Position Clear.
Our naval defense position under
this treaty is the more clear If we eX-
anime our present naval strength in
comparison to the present strength of
the other nations, and then examine
the improvements In this proportion
which will result from this treaty. This
Improvement arises from the anticipa-
ton Of parity in battleShips to be
reached 10 years hence under the WASH
1ngton arms treaty and the fact that
other nations have been building in the
classes of ships not limited by that
treaty, while we, until lately, Jagged be-
hind
"On the first Of January last the
total naval tonnage, diSregarding paper
fleets, and taking only those ships ac-
tually built and building, was, for the
United States, 100000 tons; for the
British Empire, 100000 tons; for
Japan, 100000 tons-that is, If the
United States Navy be taken as 10O
then the British Navy equals 113 and
the japanese Navy, IS. Under this
treaty the United States will have l.
10000 TONS Great Britain, 1,151 900
tons, and Japan, 714,000 tons, or a
ratio of 100 for the United States to
1924 for Great Britain and 63.6 for
Japan. The slightly larger tonnage
ratio mentioned for Great Britain is
due to the fact that her cruiser fleet
will be constituted more largely of
smaller vessels, weaker in gun power,
but the United States has the option to
duplicate the exact tonnage and gun
caliber of the British cruiser fleet II we
desire to exercise it,
What U. S. Will Have.
THE relative improvement in the po-
sition of the United States under this
treaty Is even better than this state
ment would indicate. In the more i'm
portant categories, battleships, aircraft
carriers, 8-inch and 6-inch cruisers
that is. emitting the secondary arms of
deStroyers and SubmarineS-the fleet
built and actually building on January
l of this year was 809 900 tons in the
United States, 1893, 900 tons in Great
Britain and $4,000 tons in Japan. or
upon the basis of 100 for the United
States it was l34 for Great Britain and
20 for Japan.
Under this treaty the United States
VIII on January !, 1887, possess, COM
DenOunces Treaty