The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-02-17

not out of order. It was placed on the blackboard for two reasons:
 First: Wendell Willkie, in his tes- timony before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that Brit ain needed destroyers, planes and transports above all else.
 Second: The House of Represen- tatives, in passing the lease-lend bill on to the Senate, inserted an amendment proposed by Democratic John w. Mccormack of South Bos- ton, Mass. authorizing the Presi- dent to transfer defense articles to other governments, but with this kicker on the end:
 G.. The value of defense articles
 disposed of. procured from
 funds heretofore appropriated
 shall not exceed $1,30O,O ,0oo."
 The purpose of the amendment was to put a curb on the President and prevent him from giving away "by blank check" the whole navy or airforce, as his opponents feared he might. Four billion and seven billion-dollar limits had also been proposed, but the figure of $1,300,- 100000 was inserted as representing approximately 10 per cent of the current defense effort which now runs between 12 and 13 billions. If the Senate keeps that $500, ,O00, 900 figure, the United States is limited to "10 per nt-all-out-aid-to-Bri- tain" and the problem arises as to just what she's going to get for the money.
 SUBTRACT-AND THEN SUBTRACT SOME MORE
 The Treasury Department is now compiling a list of equipment which can be spared, but if the first item for Britain is the $500, 0,000 900 worth of war tools" which Prime Minister Churchill called for in his recent address, there is left from the $1,- 300 900 ,OOO only $80O,000,000 for des- troyerS, planes and ships.
 Navy Secretary Knox has frowned on more destrcyers for Britain at this time. but if we were to give an- other 50 destroyers from the new 159 we already have or the 60 new ones under construction, figuring a des- troyer as worth $8,000,000, the fifty would cost $4OO,O00,000 and leave $4OO ,o0o 900 for planes and ships. British losses in merchant ship ping since the beginning of the war have averaged 68,000 tons a week: British shipyards can turn out new ships at a rate which will replace the loss. If the United States were to supply the balance we would have to make available 1,768,OOO tons a year which is, curiously enough, about half our existing ton- mage in ocean-going vessels, though we have 200 merchant ships of B. 135, ,O0O gross tons on order.
 Costs of shipping vary widely. In the last four months the navy has bought four 6000-ton cargo vessels at more than $2,000000 each or $333 ton. Todd Shipyards Corporation however, has a contract to build 600 GOO tons of shipping for the Br1- tish at total cost of $100,000.OOO or $166 ton. Taking this latter and smaller figure of $166 ton. supplying about .1,768000 tons would run to about $295 100000.
 Subtract this from the $40O,0O0,- 900 balance remaining three para graphs up and you have $105 ,000, 1000 left for planes. Average price Of a modern patrol bomber fully equlp- ped is $125 900. Divide that into S1o5 .oO0 900 and you will see that Britain would get no more than $50 planes.
 ANOTHER YEAR,
 ANOTHER DOLLAR?
 If we are unable to give Britain the destroyers, but substitute a cruiser or two at $25 ,000, 900 each or a battleship at a minimum $65 0OO,- 900, the number of planes and des- troyers would be approximately re- duced, eight destroyers being ob- tainable for the price of one battle ship, and POO planes for one cruiser.
 There is one ace in the hole which offers Britain hope of more help. This is the fact that the $500 .OOO,- 900 limit applies to funds hereto fore appropriated" Another year, another budget. will mean another II billions or more to spend. And if the situation in Europe has taken turn for the worse, maybe the ante will be raised.