Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

ment is ready at all times to present to you publicly, whenever it is proper, and in executive session when public hearings would not be advisable, any information or expert advice in the hands of the department or of anybody connected with it. That information is available to the committee on any subject connected with the national defense. We have no secrets from the committee that the department might not desire to disclose.

The CHAIRMAN. The national defense is something that is of interest to the whole people, and in my judgment all the people should know just what the defenses are. Therefore it would seem to me that a fair statement or comparison should be made here and now, so that the country will know just where our defenses are. My attention was called to this cruiser program of Great Britain and Japan as compared with our own, and I thought that the inquiry ought to be made. If it is not the purpose that the directions of Congress shall be obeyed, then I am done.

Secretary WILBUR. I said appropriations were asked of the Budget for three cruisers which are not incorporated with the five for which appropriations have been passed upon by the Budget. Mr. Robinson says that he is under the impression that there was no amount included in our Budget for those three cruisers. If that is true, it is because we were fully advised that no appropriation would be approved for those three cruisers. I will leave the matter there, if I may.

Mr. BRITTEN. Has the department requested the Director of the Budget, or the Budget Bureau, to allow any specific amount for those three last cruisers?

Secretary WILBUR. As I said a moment ago, the Assistant Secretary tells me that I was in error there. If it was not, it was because we were fully advised no appropriation for them would be approved. Mr. BRITTEN. By whom were you advised that there would be no appropriation allowed for those last three cruisers?

Secretary WILBUR. I will ask you to withdraw that question, if you will.

Mr. BRITTEN. But, Mr. Secretary, in justice to the situation, I think the committee ought to know, and ultimately must know, just what liaison occurs between the department and the Director of the Budget. If you are informed directly, or even indirectly, by the Director of the Budget that any amount requested for a specific purpose will receive no consideration and that therefore you should not include it in your request, I think the committee should know that. The committee must know that ultimately.

Secretary WILBUR. Will you let me consider that question and the answer to that question; I am not sure I ought to answer it.

Mr. VINSON. Especially in view of the attitude of the Chief Executive, I am at a loss to understand why the department did not ask who brought about the pressure causing them not to ask for the money.

In view of the attitude of the Chief Executive, expressed in his message yesterday, and in view of the information brought to the Navy Department not to make a request for that purpose, I think

the country and the committee is entitled to know who wields the big stick on these appropriations and keeps the Navy Department from doing what the President wants done, because the President in his message says attention should be given to cruisers.

Secretary WILBUR. I will make that statement in executive session, if you gentlemen wish it.

Mr. VINSON. Did the same line of thought prevail in reference to the refusal of the Budget to allow an appropriation for the dirigible to be constructed? Did the department ask for that?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes.

Mr. VINSON. But you did not submit estimates for these cruisers? Secretary WILBUR. For the cruisers we did not submit estimates. Mr. ANDREW. If I understood you correctly, the cruisers, at least the two that are under way, could be finished by 1929?

Secretary WILBUR. That is true; I think they could be finished in September, 1929.

[ocr errors]

Mr. ANDREW. That is the two, or the five?

Secretary WILBUR. The two.

Mr. ANDREW. That would really mean two years more of appropriations. But you are only asking at the rate of $3.000.000 a year for each of those cruisers, and they would each cost $16,000,000. In other words, instead of being finished in 1929 they would be finished, at the present rate of appropriation, in 1932.

Mr. ROBINSON. In reference to the figures I gave for 1928 for the two cruisers, 24 and 25, and for the three, 26, 27, and 28, I gave the figures for 24 and 25 as $6,250,000. That is for hull and machinery.

Mr. ANDREW. That is for each or both?

Mr. ROBINSON. For both. But besides that there is $4,500,000 for ordnance on those two.

Mr. ANDREW. That is included in the estimate of $16,000,000? Mr. ROBINSON. That is included in the estimate of $16,000,000. The same thing applies to 26, 27, and 28. I gave the figures as $9,750,000. That was for hull and machinery alone. They also have $4,500,000 for ordnance.

Mr. ANDREW. At that rate of appropriation when would those five cruisers be completed, if you follow the same rate?

Secretary WILBUR. A year later; that is, the last three would be a year later than the first two.

Mr. ANDREW. The first two might be finished in 1929, but at the present time, at the rate at which we are now going, they would be finished when?

Secretary WILBUR. Before 1930.

Mr. ANDREW. The two will probably be finished before 1930 at the rate of present appropriations?

Secretary WILBUR. Yes.

Mr. ANDREW. And the other three would be finished when?
Secretary WILBUR. A year later; in 1931.

Mr. VINSON. Mr. Secretary, would the committee be justified in concluding from what you stated about not being permitted to make a request, that the Navy Department does not make any requests to

the Budget until it has assurance from the Budget that it is going to grant the Navy Department's request?

Secretary WILBUR. No.

Mr. VINSON. But in this instance

Secretary WILBUR (interposing). I have stated I would make my statement in reference to that in executive session, if you wish to hear me.

(Thereupon, the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.)

[ocr errors]

[No. 45]

STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL ANDREW T. LONG, OF THE GENERAL BOARD, UNITED STATES NAVY, AND ADMIRAL EDWARD W. EBERLE, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY, ON THE STATE OF THE NAVY

AFTER RECESS

The committee reconvened at 2 o'clock p. m. pursuant to the taking of the recess, Hon. Thomas S. Butler (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL ANDREW T. LONG, GENERAL BOARD, UNITED STATES NAVY

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, you were one of the commissioners who sat at Geneva?

Admiral LONG. I was one of the representation that went over to the conference that met May 18.

The CHAIRMAN. You belong to the Navy, of course?

Admiral LONG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And we understand that you belong in its circle, and were appointed by the President one of the commissioners that sat at Geneva?

Admiral LONG. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please tell us, in a line, what your status was in sitting there what you expected to do.

Admiral LONG. I was there principally, in fact my entire duty, practically, was to assist Admiral Jones, who was the senior member of the Naval part of the representation, in the work in the confer

ence.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the object of the conference?

Admiral LONG. The object of this conference was to answer certain questions that had been proposed to this preparatory commission-it was called a preparatory commission-for a reduction and limitation of armaments. Seven questions, as I remember, were originally propounded to them. I think one other was added later. The CHAIRMAN. How long did you sit?

Admiral LONG. Well, the conference began on May 18; that was the plenary session. Then, after about 10 days, or 12, the separate commission sat. There were two subcommittees, as Admiral Jones explained this morning, subcommittee A which was the technical committee, and subcommittee B which you might call the economical or political committee. I think it was called "economical" as I remember. Subcommittee A then began sessions and remained in session so long as I was there, until the 7th of July, when it took a recess until the 2d of August. I left the conference the 7th of July. The CHAIRMAN. You left the conference at that time and returned to the United States?

[blocks in formation]

Admiral LONG. And returned to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Jones has told us all about it.

Admiral LONG. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Admiral Long, do you recall this conference that sat in Washington?

Admiral LONG. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That sat only a few weeks and reached a definite conclusion, did it not?

Admiral LONG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not reach any, except that you would think about at a later time talking about when you would consider the advisability of meeting again? (Laughter.)

Admiral LONG. No; I should hardly put it that way, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you not cut across the lot as Secretary Hughes did here, and say to those people "We will do so and so, if you will agree to a limitation"? That was what Secretary Hughes said.

Admiral LONG. That was a different type of conference.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, it was.

Admiral LONG. This was a preparatory conference.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I see. In other words, this was preparing the way?

Admiral LONG. Preparing the ground.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it possible to have had a conference that could have reached a conclusion? What is your idea on that? Could not you have had the representatives of those different nations meet and you submit to them the wishes of the American Government and the American people, and have reached an agreement among those nations which would then give us some sort of an agreement upon these subsidiary ships of war, the same as upon the big ships? Admiral LONG. My personal opinion is that would be a rather difficult problem.

The CHAIRMAN. We accomplished it with the big ships; why could not we do it with the smaller ones?

Admiral LONG. It seems to me this conference did a good deal in educating the people that the great question of limitation of armaments is a very difficult problem to solve.

The CHAIRMAN. We did not have so much difficulty with the big ships. I am not asking for the purpose of asking questions, but that we may know, and we had such great success in this Washington conference that the people anxiously wait for a similar conclusion upon these smaller ships of war. Why is it not possible to get that conclusion? Is not England willing to join with us on the number of small ships?

Admiral LONG. I presume it is possible; but it was beyond the prerogatives of this preparatory conference at Geneva; that was not their prerogative and they were not called upon to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. After sitting there with the representatives of those 18 different nations, what do you think would be the response those nations would make if the plain proposition came from America-" Shall be continue to arm, or will you meet with us in a conference the purpose of which is to limit the armaments? Are you going to force us to arm by your disagreement, or will you meet

« AnkstesnisTęsti »