Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-14

No Treaty Navy?

There is bound to be profound mysti-
fication over the fat-footed statement
by Admiral Pratt. ranking officer of the
United States Navy, concerning the
fleet which the London limitation
treaty authorizes this country to con-
strlct and maintain. 1T was never in
tended to build the fleet up to Lon
don treaty limits" says the chief Of
Naval Operations, himself the leading
naval adviser of the American delega-
ton at the 1880 conference.
The statement will both surprise and
shock the country Admiral Pratt ex-
plains that mo right thinking Amer
lean naval officer" would favor expand
ing American sea power between now
and 1886, when the three power Anglo
American Japanese pact expires. to the
gross tonnage therein provided for. His
argument is that the United States at
present 'is suffering from having
rushed construction all at one time, SO
that our ships become average all at
once"
1t can only be said, in calmness and
candor, that Admiral Pratt here pro-
jects a sensationally new theory of
what the United States fought for and
won at London. The great objective
there, the American people were told
over and over again ON the most re-
sponsible authority, was parity with the
British fleet. The treaty granted us
the right to that parity. It was an
unwritten provision of the pact that
the British and Japanese fleets should,
in effect, stand still, constructionally,
until the American fleet had, respec-
lively, attained tonnage parity with the
British navy and the contractual mar
gin of superiority over the Japanese
navy. The British feet Is today sub
stan TALLY up to the treaty limit. At
the present rate of construction, the
American feet will be 100000 tons
short of parity in effective under-age
ships by July, 1898.
Admiral Pratt speaks of "other
treaties" which may alter the American
tonnage ratio. Whether he be thinking
of the nebulous possibilities that may
arise from the Geneva conference
which is to deal primarily with military
probiems-or another naval Limitation
parley, it is Admiral Pratts view that
the United States should not rush
into construction Of vessels that may
be doomed to premature obsolescenca
He wants TO- ind 'the eventual strength
at which the fleet will be fixed and
then sbuild steadily up. to It,"
When the Hoover administration held
the Senate in prolonged session in July,
$780, for the purpose OF ratifying the
London treaty it certainly permitted
the country to believe that the pact was
something more than scrap Of paper.
1t was negotiated, its sponsors declared
for the purpose of assuring the United
States "a balanced fleet" It's corollary
object was to guarantee US strength at
sea equal to that of the worlds largest
navy, namely, the feet of Great Britain.
What has happened to change the
administrations mind about the neces-
sity of "a balanced feet? Why is the
parity demanded in 1880 superfiuous in
1872 A day or two ago it looked as
If Americans were ready and glad to
look upon the Hoover-Navy League inn
broglio as a closed incident. But ques-
tons suddenly are raised, to which the
people require clear answers. They will
now welcome the airing Of tho whole
naval situation that is foreshadowed in
the approaching session Of Congress.