[No. 44] STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL HILARY P. JONES, U. S. N., GENERAL BOARD, NAVY DEPARTMENT, ON THE STATE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY, ALSO STATEMENT OF HON. CURTIS D. WILBUR, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL HILARY P. JONES, GENERAL BOARD, NAVY DEPARTMENT The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Jones, the Secretary of the Navy is detained this morning, but will come in later. In his absence I am assuming that it is the wish of the committee that you be heard now. There is nothing in what we propose to do that should alarm the country in any way. We are simply trying to ascertain what we usually attempt to ascertain as to the condition of our military force at sea, or our Navy, and what is necessary to be done, if anything, to bring that force up to a state of completion that will give to what we call American dignity, American property, and American life the protection they ought to have. I do not wish to do anything, or to attempt anything in that direction, until we may be informed as to what happened at the Geneva conference. You were one of the commissioners appointed by the President to attend that conference, and we will be greatly interested if you will tell us as much as you feel you should tell us about what happened at Geneva, and about what is likely to happen, from your intercourse with the representatives of the other nations. We would like to know what further limitation of armaments is likely to occur. I will say this to you, Admiral Jones, that there are some figures before me now with reference to our cruisers and submarines which would seem to indicate to me that our cruiser situation needs some attention. However, if there should be a limitation of cruisers on the part of other nations that have been ahead of us in that respect, so that they will come back to our condition, I am sure we will be content, but if they do not do that, then we do not wish to avoid any responsibility that the Constitution of the United States may put upon us as a legislative body. Now, if you are willing to reply to the suggestions I have made, I am sure the committee will be glad to hear you. Admiral JONES. Of course, it would be impossible for me, even if it were proper, to make any prophecies as to what is going to eventually come out of the convention or conference that we had at Geneva. I was a member of the representation of the United States on the preparatory commission for disarmament, which, although they call it disarmament, really means a reduction or limitation of armaments. The preparatory commission itself is composed of one representative from each of the 19 countries. When we started it was composed of representatives of the foreign offices of those countries. Attached to the representation were technical advisers. The preparatory commission first met in May, and after a short general discussion broke up into two subcommissions. One was the technical military subcommission, of which I was a member; and on that subcommission there were representatives of the army, navy, and air forces of the various countries. Those countries that did not have any navy and therefore no naval representative were represented by generals, etc. That body was called subcommission A, and another subcommission of the preparatory commission was called subcommission B, which was to take up the economic and somewhat of the political side of the questions. The technical subcommission, or military subcommission A, was intended to deal only with technical questions relating to the reduction or limitation of land, sea, and air forces. We started with three from the Navy and three from the Army, and we called in the naval air representatives who were in Europe to assist when air questions were before the subcommission. However, early in the meeting of subcommission A, I will say that apparently there was the determination not to do anything of great importance, or to come to any conclusion, until the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, in order that the admission of Germany to the league and the question of certain demands that were made by continental powers as to their security under certain articles of the league had been definitely determined, or as definitely determined as possible. Therefore, the discussion of the set of questions that had been issued by the council of the league in the latter part of 1925, to which this technical subcommission was to give answers, was carried along in a manner to prevent any real decisions being arrived at, until after the assembly of the league had met, and certain demands had been satisfied, as far as it was possible to do so. During this discussion, fundamental differences developed as to the method of comparing the strength of military forces, particularly, from my point of view, with respect to the naval forces of the various countries, which differences were, I might say, well known, and irreconcilable, so far as the technical members of the commission were concerned. What will be the final result of it, after the report has been studied, it is impossible to say. This report of the technical subcommission A will be printed and distributed to the various governments, I think, early in January. Then it is to be sent, of course, to all the governments represented to be studied by their military staffs, foreign offices, etc. The probabilities are modified, instructions will be given by the countries to their representatives on the preparatory commission which is to meet in the spring. Then this preparatory commission is supposed to make, if possible, an agenda, on which the final conference on the reduction and limitation of armaments will be able to act. The assembly of the league adopted a resolution that, if it were materially possible to do so, a final conference on the reduction and limitation of armaments should meet prior to the next assembly of the league, next September. Whether it will be possible to have such a conference at that time is problematical. We do not believe very much that it will be possible to have a final conference on disarmament, or the limitation of armaments, to meet before some time in 1928, but it is impossible to say as to that at the present time. It will depend very largely on the instructions that will be given to the preparatory commission after a study of the report of the technical subcommission has been made by the various governments represented. The CHAIRMAN. Who will give those instructions to the commission? Admiral JONES. The governments of the countries represented. The CHAIRMAN. You will excuse me for interrupting you? Admiral JONES. I do not know that it will be interesting to you. to know The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Every bit of it is interesting. Let me ask you, if you please, how long were you in session, and did you talk with them every day? Admiral JONES. We had an adjournment in July, nominally, for the representatives of the countries to go back home." The CHAIRMAN. You could not, then, even agree on a time at which they would talk about limitations? They would not even agree upon a time? Admiral JONES. Yes, sir; I think so. Do you mean the preparatory commission? The CHAIRMAN. Did you adjourn to meet at a certain time? Admiral JONES. The technical subcommisison adjourned, having finished its work and having answered the questions propounded by the Council of the League. We finished our answers to those questions, and the report will go to the preparatory commission, which is to meet, if possible, on the 21st day of March. Probably it will meet in April. How long that will take, of course, no one is able to say. The CHAIRMAN. Did you agree to anything? Admiral JONES. There were five nations that agreed very closely, so far as the limitation of naval armaments was concerned. They agreed very closely on the methods of comparison of the strength of naval armaments, and also on the methods of limitation. The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us what nations those were? Admiral JONES. Great Britain, Japan, the United States, Argentina, and Chile. They agreed very closely, both on methods of comparison and on methods of limitation of naval armaments. The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell me what is the difference between competition and comparison? What is the real difference? I would like to have that defined. Admiral JONES. I might say that this method of limitation or comparison of armaments The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It is a comparison of the military strength of the nations, is it not? Admiral JONES. It is a comparison of the naval strength of the nations. The CHAIRMAN. Is not that the method that has always been adopted by the different nations in attempting to reach agreements? Admiral JONES. By other nations? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Admiral JONES. That is the only way to do it. Mr. BRITTEN. Can you tell the committee just why France was not included among those nations that did substantially agree upon a method of reduction or comparison? Admiral JONES. That would be pretty hard to say. I can tell you wherein they differed technically. The French insisted, as did practically all of the continental powers of Europe, upon what they call the "Global" comparison, or the Global method of limitation of naval armaments. They would carry that Global method into the matter of disarmaments. That is to say, they insisted upon the interdependence of land, sea, and air forces. It was their attempt to get a coefficient to each one of those sea, land, and air forces, and to work out the interdependence of the various arma ments. Mr. BRITTEN. Let me see if I understand what you mean by the Global method, or the interdependence of armaments: Do you mean to say that the French wanted to have considered in connection with the reduction of armaments, or at the same time, the comparative strength of the navy, and, also, of the land and air forces? Admiral JONES. That there should be a general limitation, and that the total military strength of the nations should be considered in the reduction and limitations of armaments. In other words, it was the purpose to try as far as possible to get a coefficient for each one of the branches-that is, to the land force, the sea force, and the air force and have the limitation of each one dependent somewhat upon the condition of the others. Mr. BRITTEN. Then, does not that in itself indicate that we will never get together with the European nations on a disarmament program, if it is to be hooked up Admiral JONES (interposing). I would not like to say that yet. Mr. BRITTEN. If they are going to hook up with any naval disarmament plan their land forces and air forces, in which we have substantially less interest or no interest at all, is it likely that we can get together with them? Admiral JONES. I would not like to make a prophecy on that as yet, because when they have studied this report it is impossible for me to say, or any one else to say, what will be the final instructions to the representatives on the preparatory commission which is to meet in the spring. Mr. BRITTEN. Will they adhere to those instructions? Admiral JONES. They will adhere to the instructions their governments give them. Mr. BRITTEN. What will happen, for instance, if all the nations except France agree to a disarmament plan, or, at least, agree to this limitation of naval armaments plan that is indorsed by the five nations you have named, and France should say, "No, we will go along as heretofore, unless you hook it up with all the military forces of the nation, and include all of them in one program? Admiral JONES. If they take that stand unequivocally, I do not see how we could get together, but I do not know that they will stand on that unequivocally. Mr. VINSON. Those five nations you have mentioned agreed to deal with the three forces separately and independently of each other. Admiral JONES. That is correct. We would treat them separately. Mr. VINSON. In other words, the Navy is to stand in comparison with the navies of other countries, and the Army and the air forces are to be dealt with separately. Admiral JONES. Yes, sir. Mr. VINSON. Would you not take into consideration the whole military force, both land and sea, as composing one unit, to be dealt with in its entirety? Admiral JONES. We did not. Mr. VINSON. Would you not be bringing about more disarmament if you took the whole military force into consideration than you would if you took each force separately and independently of the other? If you are trying to accomplish disarmament, why should not the whole subject be treated as one unit instead of being treated as three parts? Admiral JONES. Because we consider it practically impossible at the present time to bring that about. The only way in which we think that it can possibly be done is by limitation of each separately, treated on its own basis. Mr. ANDREW. You stated that five powers believed in this principle of a separate limitation of the different types of armaments. How many powers were represented in the conference that adhered to the Global theory? Admiral JONES. There were 19 powers altogether that were represented. Mr. ANDREW. So that 14 powers took the other view. Admiral JONES. Fourteen powers were of that opinion. Not all of those powers, however, were entirely wedded to the Global method or the interdependence of armaments. I think that probably Finland would be willing to deal with them separately. I forget now whether Sweden would or not, but some others were not distinctly wedded to the interdependence of armaments. Mr. ANDREW. Can you state how many powers represented there adhered to the Global theory? You stated that five powers believed in the separate theory. Admiral JONES. That was essentially in dealing with the reduction or limitation of naval armaments, on the Global theory. The CHAIRMAN. My colleague spoke particularly of France. You did not mention whether the other powers adhered to it or not, but you said that practically all continental Europe adhered to the Global theory. Admiral JONES. Yes, sir; practically all of continental Europe was rather insistent on dealing with the three categories of armaments altogether. Mr. ANDREW. So that more powers were wedded to the Global theory than to the separate theory. Admiral JONES. Yes, sir. The term "Global" is very largely applied to naval armaments alone, although you could use the term in dealing with all three forces. I will try to explain what the Global method means as applied to the naval program. Mr. VINSON. Let me clear this up, because I may have a wrong conception of it: The objective of that conference was the limitation of armaments. Admiral JONES. Yes, sir. |