Treaty Fleet

ARMY & NAVY

Last week the U. S. Navy steamed back into the news on Capitol Hill. The Senate Committee on Naval Affairs unanimously approved legislation to build the fighting fleet up to full treaty strength. Japan's warlike activities in the Far East were a large psychological factor in propelling the bill out to the Senate. An anxious state of mind was reflected in Secretary Stimson's hint that Japanese hostilities in China might justify a general abrogation of the Washington and London treaties limiting Naval Armament (see p. 12).

The bill that went to the Senate was sponsored by Maine's Senator Frederick Hale, chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee and persistent advocate of a full-sized Navy. In 200 words it gave blanket authority for whatever naval construction was necessary to bring the fleet to its maximum strength. It appropriated no money; it detailed no building program; it set no time limits. If enacted, however, it would permit an expenditure of close to $1,000,000,000 to complete all vessels now building, modernize all capital ships, equip all carriers with aircraft, replace all overage craft and add enough new tonnage to make the U. S. fleet second to none. Its prime purpose was to establish in U. S. law a naval building policy which President Hoover, for reasons of economy, has been reluctant to pursue. Senator Hale made much of the argument that his bill, if passed, would improve U. S. bargaining power at the World Disarmament Conference now sitting at Geneva. This view impressed Senator Watson Republican floor leader, who declared: "The Republican leadership will do all it can to get this bill through. It will give our men some chips with which to sit in the Geneva game." Meanwhile in the House, Chairman Carl Vinson of the Naval Affairs Committee was again at work to get his building bill out on the floor. More specific than the Hale measure, his would authorize the construction of 120 craft--three aircraft carriers, nine light cruisers, 13 destroyer leaders, 72 destroyers and 23 submarines --at an estimated cost of $616,250,000 in ten years. Representative Vinson dropped his bill in January because of the Geneva Conference and the low state of Treasury finances. Fortnight ago, however, he took the House floor to announce a change of mind, to point a warning finger at the "crisis" in the Far East, to predict failure for the Geneva parley, to argue that naval shipbuilding during Depression would save the U. S. money, help relieve unemployment.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.