The Washington times., 1930-01-22
To Be
SAVED BY GUT
IN NAV|E5

The London naval conference
is not only the biggest diplomatic
battle-ground Of the year but IL
takes its place as one Of the most
important international financial
gatherings Of the year.
For in the deliberations Of the
conferences is bound the fate Of
billions Of dollars worth Of prop
erty and the expenditure OF q
billion dollars g year by the great
powers to maintain their aaviess
Calling attention to the busi!
ness side Of the five-power coEls
clave. Representative Burton Ii
French (R.) Of Idaho, chairman
Of the House Appropriations Com.
mittee In charge Of naval ex.
penditures and its expert on this
subject. today pointed out the
vast results that may flow from
an agreement to reduce navies. !
Vast Sums Spent
During the fiscal year Of 1919
the United States spent upon her
navy $374,608, ,054, or more than
three times as much as Germany.
spent in 1914" said Representas
tive French. Great Britain, ir1s
her last fiscal year, spent $2T4,sE
00O, 900. b
"Eighty-two per cent of the
revenues Of the United States Is
applied for expenses occaSioned
By past wars or for military pllr.
poses looking to the future. Sirni.
lar burdens rest upon other ma
ktiOns." s-
The latest figures secured by..
French through the Naval Intel.;
ngence Bureau shows the expeadi.
lures for 1929 of the five great
powers ct the London peace table.
as follows: Z.
United states, $374,6O .054:
Great Britain, $278,47S, 900; Japs.
pan, $131,222,7 1872: France, $Y9,-
$50, 900: Italy, $63, ,622, ,9S2. The
expenditures Of Germany for the
same period were $47,764,010 and
Russia. $42,329. .289. !.
Costs More Than Double
"Some qualification must be
made in attempting to compare
naval strength upon the basis
Of money appropriated" said
French. This is true, in part,
because Of the difference In pur.
chasing power and personnel
(civil and military costs. to the
variation In the sources Of needed.
raw materials. and, In part, be-.
cause of the difference in human
efficiency" i
Comparing the increase since
1904, French showed the United
States is spending $265, 600, 900 o.
year on her Navy more than she
spent IS years ago, and increases
for other nations are somewhat
similar.
The naval tonnage of the lead.
ing powers, including ships build.
ing and appropriated for, is given
by French as follows:
U. S. Leads in Men and Ships
United States, 1909 tons:
Great Britain, 1857 ,537: Japan.
792, $50: France, 564,101: Italy.
3T9.225: Germany. Isl, ,290; Rus.
sian. 148,226.
Those who contend the British
navy is superior to the American
navy point out, however, that the
United States tonnage includes.
many old ships. particularly many
deStroyerS which are not used
and which were cleft over" from
the World War.
The man power of the navieS ig
given by French as follows:
United : States, 93,323: Great
Britain, 89,O07; Japan, 81, ,59S:
France, 60,834; Italy, 1897: Ger
many 1897; Russia, $4,000.
The conference, in dealing with
ships Of war, is discussing an ex.
penSive product, according to
French. The cost of q battleship
generally is about $4,000, 600: an
airplane carrier, $19,000.0O0; O.
cruiser, $1,000. 900: a submarine.
| $6,0OO.000 This is based upon
the latest American expenditures
Since an American battleship
costs more than $4,000, 900 to
operate, French has figured that
Scrapping of all 18 of our battle.
ships would save the Government
| AAE nm mn n ~ynana