Evening star., 1934-02-13
LARGER j. S. NAVY
VITAL, SAYS WALSH
Treaty-Strength Fleet Urged
In Radio Forum Talk
by Senator.

The contemplated building pro-
ram TO bring the American Navy up
treaty strength is necessary de-
fensive step and a prerequisite to
any move toward world disarmament,
Senator Walsh, Democrat, of Massa-
chusetts declared last night. The
Senator spoke in the National Radio
Forum, arranged by The Star and
broadcast over a coast-to-coaSt net
work of the National Broadcast
ing 90.
The conversations of 1921, 1927 and
1880 have failed to bring about dis
armament, the speaker said, and now
the question confronting the country
is whether the United States is to
build and maintain q navy OF the
strength agreed upon at London in
1880 or curtail its efforts in this d.
rection.
"I have taken the position that We
ought TO continue on with our naval
program and build the ships that we
now lack within the limits fixed by
the treaty" Senator Walsh asserted.
This is President Roosevelt'S posi-
ton. This entails large expendi-
lures, but I cannot persuade myself
of the wisdom of any other course"
Additional Vessels.
The Navy appropriation bill already
passed by House and Senate, the
speaker pointed out, provides for
buildtng four cruisers, while the Vim
son bill. at present before the SEN
ate, authorizes additional vessels to
replace those which have become OBJ
Eolete and useless.
'"Thus," he said, 1--WE have taken
an advance step toward the accom-
pushment Of a naval parity" that
will give this country basis for
argument for reciprocal armament de-
creases, when the great naval powers
reconvene two years hence to discuss
this subject.
Ths text Of Senator Walsh's address
follows:
The United States has led the world
In preaching the gospel that the road
to peace Is through disarmament
That 50 little progress has been made
is reRrettable. It is self-evident that
we will never attain assurance OF alb
soiute world peace until all nations
have reduced their military and naval
establishments to the limits OF q police
force so small as to preclude the pos
Sibility Of armed aggression.
No measurable progress Whatever
has vet been made with respect to
Limitation, or disarmament by agree
uent, Of land forces The United
States, free from the menace Of attack
by land, SO long as its naval defense
is adequate, has never maintained
psaoe-time Army Of more than police
force proportions, so that our moves
for land disarmament for the rest OF
the world have been purely altrllStlC
and wholly Intellectual,
But with respect to naval dsarma-
nlent, which Is our present subject,
much has happened in the past 10
years, though how much and how ef-
aectual 1t has been is disputed. Dur
inH that period we have seen three
cdncerted efforts to limit naval arma-
rnents by international agreement.
First Conference In 1922.
Yarss was the Washington Naval
C6nference Of 1922, which resulted in
q hve-power agreement Of limitation
with respect only to capital ships (that
means battleships) and left compet1-
ton In all other naval craft, such as
cruisers, destroyers and submarines
unchecked. Contrary to popular opin-
ion, Great Britain did not, in the
washington Conference IN 1922, abro-
gate her traditional policy as mistress
of the seas and permit the United
States to step up to q parity with her
Instead, our country renounced the
aosual and conceded naval supremacy
which we then possessed, and by de-
stroytng new vessels upon which had
already been expended 175,000,0 900
reduced our supremacy to bare equal
tty IN capital ships with Great Brit
ain.
This unprecedented act of concilia-
ton stands unchallenged as the su-
preme friendly gesture in the long his
tory Of international relations.
Next came the Geneva Naval Con-
ference Of 1927, called at the instance
Of President Coolidge, to deal with the
Limitation Of cruisers and submarines
not dealt with at the Washington Con-
ference, and which broke up without
agreement.
Finally, we had the London Naval
Conference of 1890, from which
emeFged three-power agreement fix
ang maxtmum naval strength embrac-
tn& by no means all categories OF
ships, but II did limit cruisers, de-
w%S NJ av-iI1 m, ~
snd future policy with respect to naval
building, whatever it may be, must be
khaped with reference to these naval
treaties.
Failed 10 Bring Disarmament.
The immediate question before Con-
gFesS and the country is whether We
shall build and maintain navy oi
the size fixed by the London treaty, OF
whether we shall in effect ignore the
treaty and refuse to assume the ex-
psnse which will be imposed If we
build up to the treaty limits. It ha:
been truthfully said that the Londor
Naval treaty placed maximum lirnit
upon competitive naval building. Il
failed, however, to accomplish prog
reSg toward disarmament, because olll
Navy was not on a parity with thost
Of the other powers. Thus it is to b'
clearly understood that when now o.
In the future we consider building new
cruisers or destroyers or submarines
We are not entering any race for nava
supremacy. The precise issue, there.
fofe, In simply, Shall we carry on with
our naval program to build up to thu
ftM quota fixed by the London limita
tion treaty, or shall we halt or curtai
our naval program? have taken tn
position that we ought to continue OF
With our naval program and build th'
ships which we now lack within th'
limits fixed by the treaty. This il
President Roosevelt's position. Thi
entails large expenditures, but can
RAF VF N 80