Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-15
|S-|NCH CRUISERS
GIVEN S. SCORED
Admiral Jones Thinks Differ
ent Settlement at London
Eaa Was Possible. 49,
Continued From First Page.)

CONTINUED From First Page)
delayed building program spreading over
more years may be wiser"
He pointed out that ship designs, par
ticularly III cruisers, were changing, and
more deliberate program might save
expense and provide stronger Navy.
When do you expect parity will be
reached with Great Britain?" asked
Senator johnson, Republican, of Cali
fornia.
THAT depends, but my own view is
that it would be some time after 1886
depending on the policy We adopt" said
the Secretary.
Isn't it a fact that under the treaty
it is impossible to attain parity during
the life of the treaty."
That is true, We must leave two ships
to be built after the life of the treaty.
Senator Johnson then asked Secretary
Adams view ON the 8-inch and 6-inch
gun cruisers.
Il want a division of both types,
said Secretary Adams.
Did you oppose in London the adop-
ton OF the 6-inch-gun cruisers?"
Personally, I should have preferred
more 8-inch cruisers"
Did you yield your views?"
Il thought it wise to adopt the stu
alton opened to U.S."
When did you yield?"
when I found out 1t was impossible
to get more--we had to compromise"
Senator Robinson, Republican, In
diana, asked if the real reason" for
giving up his stand for moEe than ID
8-inch gunners was that the other ma
tions would not permit it.
That was my reason, but I don't
know about the Others" said Secretary
Adams.
Senator johnson wanted to know
about the cruiser ratio with Japan.
You yielded because Japan was
adamant?"
THAT isn't a fair statement. We
thought it was just"
Asked directly by Senator Swanson,
Democrat, Virginia, whether he thought
the 8-inch cruiser more effective"
Secretary Adams said. "yes."
Pressed by committee members,
Secretary Adams said he thought it
would be impossible for Great Britain,
in replacing tonnage, to substitute big
gun ships for small.
Senator johnson sought to learn
whether any figures were discussed be-
tween President Hoover and Premier
Macdonald when the latter came here
last Summer. Secretary Adams said the
question should be addressed to the
State Department.
Admiral Pratt underwent a similar
croSs-examination by Chairman Hale
before the naval committee. The dis
cussion turned to submarines, and Ad-
miral Pratt emphasized aerial combat
as o factor in the diminishing value
of the submarine.
Asked for Details.
Asked to 60 into details of the
American delegations policy toward
abolition Of underSea craft, Admiral
Pratt said he would prefer to discuss
the question in private.
Senator Hale asked if the submarine
was not vital to defense Of the Panama
Canal and Hawaii. But Admiral Pratt
said he felt aerial forces had changed
the situation materially" since 1922,
when he opposed abandonment OF sub
marines as naval weapon.
The chairman read a review Of Amer
lean submarine policy, obtained from
naval sources, tending to show that be-
fore the London Conference there had
been no definitely expressed American
desire for abolition of submarinS.
The hypothetical possibility of de-
Tending an expanded American mer-
chant marine In wartime was touched
on.
1T would like TO 60 into that but it
would take many more cruisers for de-
tense than are provided under the
treaty" said Admiral Pratt. I'm fact. it
would necessitate almost unlimited
building"
Senator Walsh. Democrat, Massachu-
sets, asked Admiral Pratt to propose
a method of meeting the superior mer-
chant fleet Of Germany, Japan and
Great Britain"
IT propose that you (Congress) build
up the American merchant MARINE"
Admiral Pratt replied.
In swinging into his testimony, Adj
miral Jones declaring that 1.-THE British
always want to restrict us In the type
best suited for uS--the 8-inch ships"
He said he had always objected" to
reduction in the American 8-inch ship
tonnage.
II am convinced that If we build up
to the tonnage allowed us, We will come
up to 1895 frozen into condition from
which we cannot escape" he said.
Great Britain then will have 1876, 900
tons for readjuStment to meet condi-
lions that may arise. I think I need
at that time To lead Great Britain to
readjust.
III we build the tonnage allowed us
In this treaty we will still be frozen
into q condition from which we can't
escape because We will have only $4,000
tons left"
He said Japan is sure to demand an
increased ratio in the next conference.
He had no doubt, he said, that diff
ferent provision on cruiser limitation
could have been obtained at London.
II firmly believe" said Adam Jones,
that the SIS ratio with Japan under
the circumstances that now exists in
reality amounts to SIS plus, and SO
expressed that opinion to the Japanese
in 1927 at Geneva.
II told them We would have to carry
the war to their area if trouble came
up, and that such a condition gave
them ratio of SIS plus"
Gives View on Parity.
The admiral said he realized that the
possibility Of getting parity with the
largest sea power today Is almost i'm
possible"
I'VE should have the right to use
the tonnage allowed to us in the class
of ships we want" he continued.
II believe We need units not only for
long radius action, but for strong Often
sive and defensive power. I believe
firmly that the combination is found
In the 8-inch cruiser to much greater
extent than In the 6-inch cruiser"
Admiral Jones said IF We did away
with all eight-inch guns In favor of
six-inch guns, Great Britain would be
undisputed mistress of the seas"
"The more we are limited down to
those units best suited for us, the more
Great Britain is strengthened and the
more we are weakened" he added.
Senator Swanson asked q comparison
of the British and American fleets with
the six and eight inch cruisers equally
divided.