Evening star., 1934-02-13

not persuade myself Of the wisdom OF
any other course
There was opposition in the Senate,
as you will recall, to the ratification
of the London treaty. I said then,
and I say now, that If we accepted
the treaty we ought to be ready to
fulfill our obligations under it. At the
time the treaty was under constdera-
ton in the Senate, went so far as
to offer a rider to the ratification
which would put us on record as
proposing to build our Navy up to the
treaty limits. I based my proposal on
the ground of necessity to assure in
the future actual reductions in naval
armaments as well as our national
safety in view Of the naval rights &C.
corded by the treaty to the other
powers.
My proposition reads as follows:
THAT in ratifying the treaty the
United States does so with the distinct
and explicit understanding that the
United States contemplates and in
tends substantial completion by De-
cember 81, 1896, of all the cruisers
of sIbcategory (a), all aircraft car
rierS, destroyerS and submarines
which 1t is entitled to construct under
the terms Of said treaty"
Stipulation Rejected.
The Senate, because of a minority
OF disarmament by example" Sen
ators who threatened to prevent
ratification of the treaty, rejected this
sti .oulation. I objected then and
object now to a paper navy. I pro-
tested against the hoodwinking of the
country With the reiterated statement
that under the treaty our country at
tanned naval parity with Great Britain
and Japan when there was no honest
intention Of maintaining any such
Navy In fact, and when, as a matter
of fact, we had a Navy Of markedly
inferior strength and did not intend
to increase that strength.
Therefore, I commend the frank
and unequivoca1 statement, Of the
present Secretary of the Navy, who,
In his annual report TO Congress, said:
"Of the dgnatories 10 the naval
treaties we alone have not undertaken
an orderly building program designed
TO bring the Navy up to treaty
strength. The time has come, how
ever, when we can no longer AFFORD
to lead In disarmament by example" I"
We are continually told that we do
not need q large Navy. One theory
favored by large group Of sincere
but, in my Judgment, mistaken men
and women is that we should show
the way" to large navy nations by
American leadership and idealism.
America favors naval reduction, this
group asserts, and If we fail to live up
to the doctrine we advocate, how,
then, can we expect other nations to
follow our profeSsed principles?
This Is the modus operandi Of
worldwide disarmament through the
reduction by example" method. We
have tried this method, and the his
tory of disarmament conferences since
1922 affords abundant disillusionment.
But the opponents Of our naval
program have more recent argu-
ment. They point to the Kellogg
BRAND peace pact. War has been
outlawed, they say, by the terms Of
this historic document, hence the need
for national defence no longer exists.
I wish it were possible to subscribe to
any such Utopian dream.
Contains No Disarmament Plans.
This peace pact operates merely in
the moral sphere. 1t contains no
plan for disarmament. I pray that
we may live to see the day when peace
by compact and world disarmament
may go hand in hand, but that day
is not yet. To put our reliance now
upon the Kellogg pact and to abandon
our Army and our Navy would be
suicidal.
There Is another side to the naval
question. Navies are maintained by
nations, not merely for war purposes
but in times Of peace to uphold a
nations foreign policy. The three
cardinal principles Of cur American
foreign policy are () the rights OF
neutrals, ca the Monroe Doctrine
and CD the open door. How are we
to uphold these policies without an
adequate Navy? It Is folly to think
that we can maintain an influence
for peace, defend the rights Of smaller
and neutral peoples, and protect ouI
n41A U44C 44641oo "a So@
nationals abroad, without Nav
commensurate with our rank and
power.
Again much has been said Of the
cost Of the Navy. In point of fact
it is the least expensive defense the
nations can obtain. Our Navy, II w
maintain it at treaty level, will give
assurance that no hostile force will
put foot on our soil; will forttfy the
voice of America, speaking for justict
and law in the councils Of the world
will insure respect for the lives and
property Of Americans everywhere.
When 1t comes to the question O
the cost of maintaining the Navy
pacifists are prone to take the total II
dollars Of our expenditures for ma
tional defense and compare thess
figures with the totals expressed II
dollars Of the expenditures OF othel
nations, and on that basis seek tx
show that our own expenditures art
as great or greater than those Of any
European power.
This Is an exceedingly disingenuou'