Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

sidered at all by the limitation of armaments treaty, and was not regarded as particlarly vital. There have been some developments since the treaty, in our own target practice-I am sorry I have not the data here tending to indicate the importance of long-range firing. If my memory serves me correctly, we never had held a target practice of over 10,000 yards at any time previous to 1914, and the long-range battle practice-extreme range-never occurred until 1922.

Mr. BYRNES. Of course, Mr. Secretary, it has been contended by naval officers and by officers of the department in very high position that while we have the confidence resulting from practical equality so far as tonnage is concerned, the effectiveness of the ships retained was not as great as that of the ships retained by Great Britain. You say that after investigating all elements you think that they are equal in effectiveness?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes, sir; but I do not want to put it quite as strong as that. In other words, I do not consider that my personal judgment on that question is a professional judgment. It could not be. I have no hesitation myself in making that statement of my own belief and attitude. I have not the slightest doubt in the world that you could have officers here who could demonstrate that the other fleet could destroy ours, and I would be willing to put most of those officers on board and send them out and expect them to win the fight, so far as that is concerned.

Mr. BYRNES. In your own mind you are satisfied?

Secretary WILBUR. In my own mind I am absolutely satisfied. I am not worried a bit.

Mr. BYRNES. Nothing has happened since then to cause you to lose any confidence in the effectiveness of the flect retained?

Secretary WILBUR. Well, I think that is hardly correct. In the first place, our long-range target practice has demonstrated that raodern battles can be fought at ranges which, as I say in my reply, 30 years ago and I might have said 10 years ago-were regarded as impossible: that as far as I know we have gone further than any other nation in demonstrating the possibility of long-range firing. So there has been that change since 1922.

REPORT OF SPECIAL BOARD ON VALUE OF AIRCRAFT AND BATTLESHIPS

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Secretary, you have submitted a statement in response to Mr. French's letter, to which you have attached four exhibits; and I will ask in this connection if it is your thought that there will be available to the committee, in connection with this information, a report from the special board that you appointed some months ago to consider the relative value of aircraft and battleships?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLIVER. And that report will probably be very informative, will it not?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. OLIVER. The board has gone very thoroughly into the subject? Secretary WILBUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLIVER. And it is a matter that may be laid before Congress at this session?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes, sir. Also the General Board of the Navy has a concrete building program for 20 years.

LIGIIT CRUISERS LAID DOWN BY GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN SINCE ARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Secretary, would you at this point indicate the number of cruisers that Great Britain and Japan have laid down since the Limitation of Armaments Conference?

Secretary WILBUR. It is as follows:

Light cruisers, first line (5-8-inch guns, 3,000-10,000 tons: 27 knots plus) laid down or authorized since February 6, 1922, Washington Conference Limiting Naval Armament.

[blocks in formation]

NOTE. No light cruisers, second line, have been laid down or authorized since the date given.

Mr. FRENCH. There is another question upon which we would like to have your thought, Mr. Secretary. Quoting from the President's message delivered to the Congress on December 3. the President said this:

QUOTATIONS FROM PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE DECEMBER 3, 1924

Under the limitation of armament treaty a large saving in outlay and a considerable decrease in maintenance of the Navy has been accomplished. We should maintain the policy of constantly working toward the full treaty strength of the Navy. Careful investiagtion is being made in this depart ment of the relative importance of aircraft, surface, and submarine vessels. in order that we may not fail to take advantage of all modern improvements for our national defense. A special commission also is investigating the problem of petroleum oil for the Navy, cons dering the best policy to insure the future supply of fuel oil and prevent the threatened drainage of naval oil reserves. Legislative action is required to carry on experiments in ol shale reduction, as large deposits of this type have been set as de for the use of the Navy.

We have been constantly besought to engage in competitive armaments Frequent reports will reach us of the magnitude of the military equipment of other nations. We shall do well to be little impressed by such reports or such actions. Any nation undertaking to maintain a military establishment with aggressive and imperialistic designs will find itself severely handicapped in the economic development of the world. I believe thoroughly in the Army and Navy, in adequate defense and preparation. But I am opposed to any policy of competition in building and maintaining land or sea armaments.

Our country has definitely relinquished the old standard of dealing with other countries by terror and force, and 's definitely committed to the new standard of dealing with them through friendship and understanding. This new policy should be constantly kept in mind by the guiding forces of the Army and Navy, by the Congress, and by the country at large. I believe it holds a promise of great benefit to humanity. I shall resist any attemp to resort to the old methods and the old standards. I am especially solicitous that foreign nations should comprehend the candor and sincerity with which we have adopted this position. While we propose to maintain de fensive and supplementary police forces by land and sea, and to train them through inspections and maneuvers upon appropriate occasions in order to maintain the'r efficiency, I wish every other nation to understand that this does not express any unfriendliness or convey any hostile intent. I want the armed forces of America to be considered by all peoples not as enemies but as friends, as the contribution which is made by this country for the mantenance of the peace and security of the world.

CRITICISMS ON CONDITION OF NAVY

Having in mind the thought of the President, and also having in mind the desire of the Navy Department and the desire of the members of this committee to bring to the attention of the Congress an appropriation bill for the Navy that will at once be adequate, members of this committee find themselves somewhat disturbed by statements that appear to come from naval officers, as individuals, or from organizations that are closely associated with the Navy, indicating that a very serious condition exists in the Navy. One editorial in a responsible paper the other day seemed to indicate that our ships were going to rust and ruin, and a paper this morning carries a statement saying:

Only 5 of America's 18 battleships are "in fair condition for real service," the Navy League asserted yesterday in a report on the Nation's first line of defense.

Other statements of that kind are being made, some of them even more serious than that; and it occurs to me that we ought to have something of an understanding as to the authority by which some of these statements find expression.

The Navy League I do not understand to an official organization; is that correct?

Secretary WILBUR. It is a voluntary organization of people who have gotten together under their own system of organization to help the Navy; to help the Nation understand its Navy. It has cooperated with the Navy, particularly in the Navy Day program. They have no official standing and no official authority whatever.

I want to say, too, that I saw the paper this morning and that I have no recollection of any such statement being made in the publication by the Navy League.

Mr. FRENCH. I do not know that it was made. I simply refer to it as a statement that has been broadcast this morning. Would any organization be in a position to know so accurately as to the different bureaus of the Navy Department, the exact situation touching the Naval Establishment, the ships, and other parts of the Navy? Secretary WILBUR. No. Of course, the statement of the Navy League is based entirely on the official report made by the Secretary, and which has been presented to this committee. It is their analysis of the report.

Mr. FRENCH. Of course, I realize that a person may have the right to make an analysis of a report and make his conclusions, but it seemed that I ought to ask whether or not any other organizations could possibly have the sources of information touching the actual condition of our battleships of the Naval Establishment generally, as do the responsible officers of the different bureaus of the Navy?

Secretary WILBUR. It would be impossible for anyone else to have that information.

Mr. FRENCH. Then, touching machinery, we could rely upon Ad

miral Robison and his corps, as furnishing us the best advice?

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly.

Mr. FRENCH. And on hulls, we could rely upon Admiral Beuret and his coworkers in furnishing us information?

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly.

Mr. FRENCH. As giving the best thought of the Navy and, in fact. the best thought on the subject?

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly.

Mr. FRENCH. So it would be touching the specialties presided over by Admiral Bloch in ordnance and Admiral Moffett, representing the Air Service?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes. Of course, just now, in the light of this recent investigation on aircraft, I feel that the General Board would give the best information.

Mr. FRENCH. But their report is not ready?

Secretary WILBUR. Their report is not ready.

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Secretary, of course the attitude of the administration is perhaps best represented as to what is now actually needed by the recommendation it makes through the Budget

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly.

Mr. OLIVER. In so far as increases in the Navy, some of the recommendations that the department may be ready to make will have to be delayed until there will be action in the Senate upon a bill that passed the House at the last session?

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly. I have neither the wish nor the disposition to criticize Congress or anyone in authority concerning their attitude toward the Navy, or the allowances made for the Navy. I am utterly out of sympathy with the newspaper criticisms and scare heads on the condition of the Navy. I believe that we have the best Navy we have ever had.

Mr. FRENCH. Of course, Mr. Secretary, I realize the criticisms directed against the Navy by the one group are extreme, and I might say, too, that criticisms directed toward our Government and toward the Congress are coming to us from others who would serap all the navies, as a sort of example to the world. We want to be right in it: we do not want to be influenced by those who, no matter what their good intentions may be, are speaking through inaccurate conclusions or bases.

Secretary WILBUR. To show you the difficulties of the situation. from the standpoint of publicity, I made this report to Congress in regard to the ratio, which is attached to my statement here, in which we called attention to the fact that, owing to the temporary disability of the boilers of some of our battleships, the ratio could justly be said to be 5-4-3. The next morning a local newspaper had an editorial demonstrating that the ratio was 5-3-1 and that we were the "1." Now, what are you going to do when a newspaper will say that "4" is equal to "1," and base an editorial on that?

MAINTENANCE OF RATIO WITH APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED

Mr. BYRNES. You answered Mr. Oliver's question, that the attitude of the administration is expressed in the Budget submitted by the Bureau of the Budget. That, therefore, is the attitude of the

Navy Department, and must be all that you think ought to be appropriated to give give us a Navy that would conform to the 5-5-3 ratio; is that right?

Secretary WILBUR. I do not know that the two go together, Mr. Byrnes.

Mr. BYRNES. It may mean that we are content to have less than a 5-5-3 Navy, and that that is all that is necessary to maintain such a Navy? What does it mean?

Secretary WILBUR. I hardly think that question puts the Secretary in the right attitude.

Mr. BYRNES. I do not want to put the Secretary in any attitude. Does the Secretary believe we ought to maintain the 5-5-3 ratio, and if so, does he believe that the estimates of the Bureau of the Budget will provide for a 5-5-3 ratio, if he is intrusted with the amount asked for to be spent as he desires?

Secretary WILBUR. I think that is best answered by the general statement I have made, that we are behind in scout cruisers. We can not maintain the treaty ratio there without large additional appropriations.

My own personal attitude, from the beginning, has been that we should maintain the treaty ratio, not only with relation to the ships that are covered by the treaty, the capital ships, aircraft carriers, but that we should accept that ratio as a basis for the building program in all other classes of ships.

I recognize that a building program must be continuous, spread over a large number of years, and that when it comes to a practical question of how much money is to be appropriated in a given year for these purposes, the final determination is with Congress, and the preliminary determination is with the Budget. But when you ask for a personal statement, I must give it to you.

Mr. BYRNES. I thought that was your view and I only wanted that view, as to whether the amount estimated for will enable you, as the Secretary of the Navy, to maintain the ratio of 5-5-3, on all the fighting elements of the Navy, so far as we are concerned?

Secretary WILBUR. Of course, we expect to ask for additional appropriations as soon as these authorization bills are passed. That is the real test of your building program.

Mr. BYRNES. Do you think when those appropriations are asked for, in addition to what you ask for here, that you will then be able to maintain the 5-5-3 ratio?

Secretary WILBUR. That is what we hope to do; yes.

Mr. TABER. Is not this the situation, Mr. Secretary: That perhaps we might be in the ratio of 5-5-3 as to capital ships to-day, but nevertheless with Great Britain's improvements due to the new ships that are going to come in, as they are completed, it will be necessary for us, if we are to maintain our ratio, to make certain improvements?

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly.

Mr. TABER. Is not that the situation and the meat of it?

Secretary WILBUR. Exactly.

22231-247-44

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »