davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
COMMITTEE FiHdinRJ.

President Hoover did not hold up the
building of five cruisers In a public
statement on July "a, 1929, the Presi-
dent announced that he would delay
the laying down of the keels of three
cruisers until there has been an OPP
portunity for full consideration of their
effect upon the final agreement for
parity which We expect to reach" The
President made this statement the same
day ths> declaration was made in the
House of Commons by the British prime
minister in which the latter said that
the British government had decided %
TO suspend all work on the cruisers Sur
rev and Northumberland (2) to can
Gel the submarine test ship Maidstone
90 to cancel two contract submarines
sd to slow down dockyard work and
other naval construction.
The consideration set forth above
should be considered in relation to the
statement that the action of the United
States was not commensurately copied
by other prospective participants"
1t should be noted that the tempo
rary suspension Of the construction OF
three cruisers did not in any way vio-
late the definite time schedule" stipu-
lated by Congress. The so-called rs
cruiser bill" which authorized this con-
struction. included a clause to the eff
feet that If the construction of any
vessel authorized to be undertaken in
the fiscal years ending June 30. 1925
or 1880, is not undertaken in that hsca
year, such construction may be uptier-
taken in the next succeeding year.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
(COm R,iftee Finding).

Expert naval opinion has been far
from unanimous in considering cruisers
of the large-gun type better suited to
our circumstances. In discussing this
matter before the Senate Committee
the Secretary OF State stated: Our
delegation made most exhaustive
study as to the history of the building
of that class of ships known as 8-inch
cruisers. As I said. we had to advise
us one of the most experienced and
Skillful constructors of the Navy. We
reached the conclusion that this new
type which had never been tested in
battle was not the basket in which to
put all OF the American eggs There
are many functions for cruisers, some OF
which can best be done by an 8-inch
cruiser and some of which can best be
done by a 6-inch cruiser. That will
be admitted by practically all naval
men," Hearings, page 22)
Paragraph 3 below states that the
actual auxiliary ship ratio of Japan is
1871. This figure is incorrect, the act
ual ratio at the present time is under
age auxiliary ships being 1917. 1t was
considerably higher than this at the
time OF the London Conference. New
ertheleSS, Japan agreed to reduce this
ratio by the end of 1886 to .esS than z
This represents q far greater sacrifice
than was made by any other country
In this connection the Secretary OF
State stated to the Senate Foreign Re
lationS Committee:
Il speak deliberately when say that
the japanese delegation. and the Jap
anese government which confirmed the
action of the Japanese delegation. had
harder problem and solved it with a
greater faith in the pacific relations of
the three great powers than any other
nation at the conference" Hearings,
page 26)
The Washington Naval Treaty ratio
OF 10 to s between the United States
and Japan on capital ships and. air
craft carriers has no connection with
auxiliary ships, which are only limited
by the London Treaty. (See also COM
ment under paragraph -
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
COMMITTEE Finding).

As has been previously set forth, the
Navy Leagues analysis of the proposed
truce is incorrect and does not accord
with the facts. Consequently, in the
light of the foregoing information, the
statement that the proposal specifically
serves British and japanese interests
to the prejudice of the analogous in
terests of the United States" is not
justifiable. It has been demonstrated
that the criticisms of the truce set
forth are based on erroneous premises
Tin particular, the assumption that con-
struction in progress would be suspend
ed and differences as to the attitude
of this Government. The position of
the United States. with respect to the
truce, is set forth in its reply to the
invitation to participate. as follows:
THE Secretary of State presents his
compliments to the secretary general of
the League of Nations, and with refer
ence to the latter's note of October 2
with regard to an ornaments truce
proposed by the Assembly, has the
honor to make the following declara-
ton:
THE Government of the United
States has received the resolution of
the Council of the League of Nations
of September 30, 1881, suggesting an
ornaments truce and declares that,
without prejudicing its position at the
forthcoming General Disarmament Con-
ference or affecting any proposal it may
desire to submit to that conference, it
is prepared, for the period of one year
beginning November /, 1891, to accept
the truce, provided that like action is
taken by the other principal military
and naval mowers
at is the understanding of this
Government that the proposed truce
shall not apply to construction which
had begun or for which contracts had
been let prior to its entry into force.
1.-The Government of the United
States hopes that by unanimous ac-
ceptance Of this truce an atmosphere
of confidence will be created which will
prevent competition in ornaments and
prepare the ground for the successful
conclusion of the General Disarmament
Conference
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
COMMITTED FindingJ.
Mary League Pam phLeD .

AS Senator Reed, who was one of
President Hoover'S delegates to the
London Conference, had there had
the experience of being forced to
yield material concessions to the
British and Japanese in order to Sc
cure for the United States an oppor-
tunity to catch up, there is especial
significance to his having said pub
licly after an interview with Presi-
dent Hoover on May 2, 1881, that
unless we build the Navy to treaty
limits by 1885, we will have no
standing at the next naval confer
ence." But, as he FASTENED to add
that the President must speak for
himself as TO his naval policy, he
thereby indicated that the Presi-
dents policy might not look to such
building. Indeed, not long there
after, the report became current
in informed circles in Washington
that President Hoover proposed to
bring about general holiday in
naval building premature report,
of which more anon, that was
promptly denied.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
COMMITTEE Finding).

The act approved February 10, 1929
commonly called the rs Cruiser Bill
was not mandatory. 1t was a condi-
tional authorization to construct GER
tain naval vessels. Section 4 of the
act provides:
I'm the event of an international
agreement, which the President is re-
quested to encourage, for the further
limitation of naval armament, to which
the United States is signatory, the
President is hereby authorized and en-
powered to suspend in whole or in part
any OF the naval construction authorized
under this act"
BY omission of reference to Section 4,
this important proviso is obscured. The
false impression is conveyed that Con-
gress had made it mandatory to LAY
down and build" Is light cruisers dur
ing the fiscal years 1929-1931, regardless
of an international agreement, which as
matter OF fact Congress had requested
the President to encourage.
There was no established ratio" of
any kind between the Japanese and
American fleets as a whole prior to the
entering into force of the London Naval
Treaty on January l. 1881. The Wash
ington Treaty ratio of 10-6 applied to
capital ships and aircraft carriers only.
On May -, 1880, the Secretary of
State stated, with reference to the
japanese position prior to the London
Naval Treaty, that Japan never agreed
that the ratio should be extended to
auxiliary vessels" Hearings on Lon
don Naval Treaty before Committee on
Foreign Relations, United States Sen
ate, page 25)
With regard to the statement that the
Coolidge administration refused to yield
to Japan any increase in auxiliary ship
ratios at the Geneva Naval Conference
the following statement by the Secretary
OF State summarizes the Geneva nego-
tiations on this subject:
AT the last Naval Conference, Japan
had frankly out lol ward proposals which
provided in the aggregate of all three
classes for very nearly 10 to Z. and
they had not been received with dis
favor by the others so far as the dis
cussion went" Hearings on London
Naval Treaty before Committee on For
eign Relations, United States Senate
page 25)
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
(COmmiffee FindinRl

Signor Grandi'S proposal was net
merely. for naval holiday, but for a
general truce covering land, sea end
air ornaments.
When this proposal was suggested by
Italy during the September, 1881. ses-
sion OF the Assembly of the League of
Nations the Secretary of State on Sep
TENDER Is informally expressed the
sympathetic interest of this Govern
ment with the principles of such a
truce, but explained that as no details
OF II had as yet been received he could
not comment Upon the proposals.
ms Governments first official pro-
nouncement upon definite draft for a
noloay plan was contained in the Gee
iaratlon made by the Honorable Hugh
wilson during the meetings of the
inlro committee Of the League of Ma
lions on September %. Further com
ment on this is included in a subse-
quent paragraph.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08

Drafting Committee, were carefully ex-
amined from every point Of view by
the appropriate branches OF the
American Government. AS q result 1t
was able on october 29-ie., one month
after the adoption by the League AS
sembly of the final draft-to declare its
acceptance of the proposed truce.
The Navy League. on the other hand
claims that it was in position TO make
conclusive analysis" OF the naval
holiday by the 25th OF September-i.e..
several DAYS before the final draft OF
the Third Committee emerged. This
conclusive analysis" has been shown
in the preceding paragraphs to be in
accurate. misleading and based on false
assumptions. BY devoting more time
to its analysis, the Navy League might
have come to more correct unoer-
standing of the situation.
AS the final terms for the proposed
truce had been outlawed September 70
and Mr.. GARDENERS pamphlet was not
published until october %, there was
ample time in which to correct the
false assumptions upon which Table ~
is based Table w Is therefore oo-
viouSly misleading.
Reference to paragraph II OF the
pamphlet shows that Mr.. Gardiner was
familiar with the actual terms OF the
proposed holiday.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
HOOVER IS CLEARED
BY NAVAL INQUIRY
Gardiner Accused by Group
of Inaccuracies and False
Assertions"
CONTINUED From First Page.)

The verdict Of the committee was
expressed in concluding paragraph
as follows:
1.-THE committee finds that in its en-
tirety Mr.. Gardeners statement con-
tains many inaccuracies, false asser-
lions and erroneous conclusions, and
that his assumption as to the PreSi-
dents attitude toward the Navy is
wholly unwarranted."
GARDENERS criticism Of the Presi-
dents suggestion for immunization of
food supplies in time of war was char
acterized as consisting largely of ex-
preSSionS of Mr.. GARDENERS personal
opinion, as publicly expressed by him
about year ago and now incorporated
in the Navy League statement
The report declared that President
Hoover's proposal for cutting the 1882
33 naval budget estimates from $401,-
000, 900 to $34O. 100000 will not inter-
fere with the naval building program
authorized by Congress. excepting the
postponement of keel-laying for six
cruisers The building program al
ready under way will be continued,
and contracts have been awarded for
five destroyers, it was pointed out.
League Leaders Silent.
The committee denied that the So
as charged by Gardiner, quoting the
act TO show it was conditional au-
thorisation," with . proviso that the
act could be suspended by the Presi-
dent, in the event Of an international
agreement.
Gardner was in New York last
night. He was reported as announcing
he would have nothing to say until he
has had an opportunity to read the
report carefully" Chairman Howe Of
the Board of Directors of the Navy
League also declined to comment. Will
liam M. Calvin, executive secretary Of
the league, said he had seen copy
of the report, but he. too, had moth
ing to say"
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
Mary League PamphleD.
NAVY BUILDING PROGRAMS.

XII.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
(Cnnn1ittee Findingl

The reduction III the 1928 Federal
budget estimates, including those Of Tire
Navy Department, asked for by the
President in connection with his econo-
my program, will not interfere with
the building program authorized ny
Congress, with the exception of six de-
stroyers, the laying down of which
under current appropriations has been
temporarily suspended and provision
for construction On which would other
wise have been made in the estimates
for the next 1scal year. Apart from
this the continuance of the authorized
program-which is one of the main
prescriptions Of the Navy Leagues
pamphlets i'll no wise affected OF
this program, cruisers, / aircraft Car
rier and 3 submarines are now build
ing, while the contracts for destroy
ers, shortly to be laid down, have been
awarded.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
(COnlmiffee FindinRl.


The extract quoted from Mr.. Wilson'S
speech to the effect that this Govern
ment was not prepared on September
%, 1881. to give its final approval "to
any particular form" does not accord
with the Navy Leagues statement, pre-
viously mentioned, which maintained
that the President promptly expressed
his approval of a suggestion, which at
that time was less concrete in its form
Even at the present time the proposed
truce has not become effective and the
final form it may take is not yet def
nitely established.
It is obvious that Mr.. Wilson's state
ment that I'VE are willing to foregC
our treaty rights in this respect" (that
is to refrain from laying down addi-
tional vessels permitted under the Lon
don Treaty but not yet authorized by
CongreSS.-See comment to paragraph
I'D referred only to the one year period
of the truce. as he himself said. Nc
one had proposed that any engagement
entered into In connection with the
truce would restrict the United States
or other powers after It's expiration.
In this connection, 1t may be recalled
that the treaty ratios are established as
not at all necessary that the full pro-
gram be laid down during the first few
years of the treaty. Even the theoreti-
cal program of the Navy League does
not envisage this. (See table IID.
There is no requirement that building
programs be carried out with approxi-
mately the same amount of construc-
ton by all countries party to the treaty
during each year of the treaty period
Postponement for one year Of the laying
down of requirements. which are per-
mitted under the London Treaty as
vessels become over-age. does not pre-
vent subsequent laying down during the
life of the treaty.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
XIII.
Mary League PGmphIeD.

1t is also pertinent to point out.
as appears in a statement issued by
the Navy League under date of Oc-
tober Z, 1881. that whereas the
maximum naval building President
Hoover now seems willing to permit
would give employment to an aver
age Of merely $4,000 men between
January l, 1882. and June 80, 1888.
If the Navy Leagues program we're
to be promptly put in practice, 1t
would give direct employment dur
ing those 18 months to an average
OF nearly 10l 900 men as we'll as the
indirect stimulus to business and
employment that would result from
employing about $1,000 more men
on naval building than President
Hoover seems willing to permit.
No comment since this paragraph i!
not within the terms of reference o.
this committee.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
PAMPHLETS ASSERTIONS
ARE ANSWERED In DETAIL
Findings Take Up Organizations State
ment Paragraph by Paragraph
for Reply.

The fSll tert of the report OF the Spe-
ctdlco7n Dsittee appointed By President
Hoover to examine and report on the
statement OF the Many League entitled
"The President and the Nary" is
printed beloiU.
The committee in its report answered
ehe assertions OF the Nary League
pamphlet. paraoraphy by paragraph IN
parallel columns, the first quoting from
the pamphlet. the second giving the
conclusions OF the committee. The
tt0Iic subheddS in the teri designate
the quotations from the Nary League
pamphlet (iDhich arc indentedj and the
boldf1ce Subhedds the findings OF the
committee in regular column 10idth.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
Mary League Pamphlet.

When he became President, in the
Spring of 1929. Congress had Just
enacted (by votes of about 5 to /
in both Houses that the United
States would lay down and build
five 10,000-ton, 8-inch gun cruis-
ers in each of the three Immediately
ensuing fiscal years in addition to
the eight such cruisers We then lad
under construction, thus planning
to provide our Navy with %. This
action by Congress was consequent
from the American British Japanese
Naval Conference of 1927 at Geneva
-whereat the Coolidge administTa-
ton had refused to meet the Brit
ish views as to the type of cruisers
we should have or to yield to the
japanese any increase in their estab-
lished ratio of to our 10 in ton
mage; and this action by Congress
was after more than a year of DELHI
Grafton on its part
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
(COmmiifee Findin1l

While the previous tables set forth
in this statement of the NAVY League
show that the conclusions reached
therein were untenable in the light Of
information then available, it is as vet
impossible to give the full results OF a
truce which has not yet been MADE
effective. In particular the reservations
of certain countries are vet to he
studied by all before the extent CT an
plication of the truce, or its elective
ness can be gagged. In consequence
any table purporting to show its results
must be based on an assumption. The
assumption contained in Table " that
ing Of any new keels, other than half
the tonnage now appropriated for. has
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
COMMITTEE Finding).

1t would seem to be apparent that
Senator Reed in making the statement
here quoted assumed that the other
parties TO the London treaty would
build up to the maXima provided in
the London treaty. If Great Britain
should fail so to build or Japan
to replace on q proportionate basis the
relative standing would not necessarily
be affected. Parity can be achieved at
any level, high or low. The London
naval treaty imposes no obligation upon
its signatories to build up to its limits
There is no basis for an assumption
that the President intends to abandon
the Washington and London treaty ra-
tics, nor do the ornaments truce or
the emergency economies contemplated
at the present time interfere with the
ultimate achievement in fact of these
ratios in all categories.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08

Table 1-"London Naval Treaty Tom
mage Quotas for Auxiliary Types" is
misleading as result of the inclusion
OF aircraft carrier tonnage. Aircraft
carriers. like capital ships, were linn
tied by the Washington and not the
London treaty; which limited all YES
sells of less than 10000 tons. whereas
all existing aircraft carriers are over
that figure. Therefore any combina-
ton in single table of categories linn
tied in two separate treaties based on
differing comparative tonnage levels re-
suits in misleading ratios.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
Mary League Pam DhIeD.

The treaty consequent from that
conference put in effect a naval
holiday as to capital ship building
until its expiration on December 81,
1886; it set up the quotas shown in
table l for other or auxiliary COM
Blatant vessels; and it provided for
another conference in 1885 unless
that should be made unnecessary by
further agreements reached at some
such prior conference as is now
planned for next February al Ge-
npVa
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
XII


The first of these published pro-
grams looked to rounding out and
replacing the fleet in every respect
in accordance with the London ma
val treaty by the end Of that
treaty on December 81, 1896. But,
mainly, although not entirely be-
cause Of the cost Of 80 doing IN
barely more than the I've years
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08

May League PdmphleD.

Mr.. Wilson'S statement was to the
effect that the United States Gov
eminent had not yet surveyed the
question of a naval holiday with
that careful scrutiny which would
enable us to give final approval at
this moment to any particular form:
that in connection with a general
program of unemployment relief 1t
will forthwith build limited num-
Der of destroyers (five) which are to
be exempted from any holiday agree
ment; that the London Naval Con-
ference treaty provides for car
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
XIV.
May League .PamphleD.

Within fortnight after the Navy
League published its building pro-
gram the Italian foreign secretary,
Senior Grandi, proposed to the
League of Nations that holiday in
naval building be taken preparatory
to and during the Leagues disarma-
ment conference. which is scheduled
to convene on February q 1922
proposal of which President Hoover
promptly expressed his approval.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08
VII
May League PamDhIet),

"'7'T77FTVTT'
The concessions at London on be-
half of the United States were, in
effect. the price there paid for
treaty comprehensively limiting naval
ornaments under such conditions
that, as alleged by its advocates,
others would stand still while we
caught up" 1.-THE importance OF af-
fording the United States such an
opportunity to catch up to the ener-
getic naval building Of less well-to-do
countries is indicated by the figures
in table II
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08

yielded to the japanese parity in sub
marines and an overall ratio for aux
iliaries of nearly 7 to our 10 instead of
the to 10 ratio we had bought from
them at the Washington Conference
in 1922 by agreeing to limit our in
sular Notifications and naval bases in
the Far East.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-08

"The percentage relationships that the
increases in ratios shown in line DeaI, re-
spectively to the corresponding ratios as
given in line T. The British Japanese gains
over the United states AVERAGE IL per cent.
Lest 1t be mistakenly inferred that the
Navy League Is opposed to naval hon-
day, it may be well to recall that. at the
outset of that analysis, we said tnat
1.-The Navy League is most heartily In
favor Of a naval holiday along any ra-
tional lines that will definitely help the
United States Fleet to approach nearer
TO parity with the British Fleet and 10
the ratios of the London treaty with
that OF the Japanese" and thus tend 10
close the existing gap. But that any
holiday move by American omclals
tending to widen that gap would not
only be to serve the interests OF otner
countries rather than those of the
United States, but would be to go back
on and to stultify the Wanted accom-
pliShments Of the Hoover administration
at the London naval conference: for the
prospect of our virtually catching up
to the treaty ratios by about the end OF
the London treaty was the very bait
held out to the country by those officials
who led it into that treaty" And the
Navy League stood by that position
when under date of the Tth of October.
it heartily approved the principle OF
naval holiday proposed on the 5th OF
october by Senator Swanson.