The Wilmington morning star., 1940-01-25
WASH|NGTON
REPORT
BY CHARLES p. STEWART
Central Press C0lumnist)

AS4N1 ooAs
habit of authorizing expenditures for various
purposes without "appropriating" any money to
foot the bill. This happens quite frequently
in connection with the matter OF Warsnlp
building. The vessels are voted for but no cash
is provided to start work on them. We already
have big additions to our fleet "authorized'
but no buildings being done, due to lack OF
the financial wherewithal:
Now there's plenty Of sentiment on capitol
Hill for another Authorization" running into
10 figures.
naval affairs committee isn't hostile to the ad-
ditional authorization" Only, he says, First
let's start construction of our previously auth
orized' fighting craft; then authorize some
more"
Admiral Harold r. Stark, the navy depart
ment's chief of operations agrees with Senator
Walsh. He points out that paper ships can't
fight, no matter how numerously and power
fully they're "authorized." What he wants Is
the real article.
Biggest Navy Ever
In fact, the admiral goes rather farther than
the senator does. Naval officers generally do
20 the limit on the subject of Uncle Sans
sea-fighting strength. The senator stops with
a plea for appropriations equal to our auth
orizations." The admiral says we need a lot
more authorizations" with appropriations" to
go with them.
In short, Admiral stark's thesis is that our
navy ought W Ut III SiSoIiS \hOt 1AiStSAJ VII
paper") big and formidable enough to lick any
Imaginable combination of navies against US.
He doesn't want it for offensive purposes. The
stronger it is, the less likely is such a COM
bination to tackle us.
That is to say, military strength is insurance
against war; not a bid for participation in
hostilities.
The q~ueston's argued both ways.
Right after the 1914-1S war there was a Wig
orous international campaign to get all first
class powers to cut down on their ornaments.
1t was in Congressman Fred Brittens day as
chairman of the representatives naval affairs
committee.
Britten was pretty hard boiled but he was
an ardent armament limitationist. His reason.
ing was that the only way to prevent a coun-
try from employing it's naval might was to
keep it from having enough OF it to be worth
employing. Britten didn't contend that any one
country, alone, could afford to adopt such a
policy. His notion was that they should do it
by what diplomats call a "multilateraI" COM
pact.
The 1858" Treaty
Well, such a dicker was framed up. Uncle
Sam promised to hold down to a naval ratio
of five versus Britain's five. Japan undertook
to hold down to a basis of three to every five
units of United States or British strength.
France and Italy in the same ratio limited
themselves to one and one-half each. It was
known as the "5-5-3-1H-1h" treaty. Germany
didn't count, having been SO recently beaten.
The thing never worked from the beginning.
Britain began by Judging surreptitiously on
Uncle Sans allowance. Japan Judged much
more openly. Germany started building pocket
battleships. France and Italy never paid much
attention to the bargain, either.
The arrangement simply evapo1 lied. Today
last years SHOWS haven't got anything on it.
Then Congressman George Huddleston of Ala
bama observed at the time that he didn't be-
lieve the frame-up would amount to anything
unless the various signatories honestly meant
it. It's abundantly evident that they didn't.
Cong essman Britten's plan to hamstring hos
tilities in advance fizzled also.
Admiral stark suggests the chance of a four
power alliance against the United States-Ger.
many, Russia, Japan and Italy.
Suppose, he says, that Britain and France
lose? He doesn't seem to consider this an i'm.
possibility. Then, he suggests, the Eurasian
quartet will be liable to gang up on us, and
We'll have two oceans to fight in. On our pres
emit basis, he surmises that one ocean will be
enough to keep our navy adequately occupied,
leaving the other one neglected.
He proposes a two-ocean American navy
and not a paper" navy, either.
It's rather melancholy, considering the in.
ternational peace talk of about Is years ago.