clearly that all parties enter the conference with free hands. Finally, we should each try to avoid arguments that put the other in the wrong. The aspect of the disarmament problem that attracts me most is less the immediate prospect of the thing itself, with its consequential material advantages. It is the fact that so many thoughtful people can not escape the conviction that there must be something wrong when armaments anywhere are increasing. Now, if anything is wrong let it disclose itself.

For my own part, I stand by the position that I took five years ago. My country, I believe, has since the battle of Jutland added but one capital ship, and that an experimental ship, to her fleet. Since the armistice not even so much as a chaser or a destrover has been built. For the five years since the words I quoted at the beginning of this article were written Great Britain has, therefore, increased her naval force only by what was urgently needed at the time for victory. And for half that period she has added nothing to the fleet at all.

sea.

In 1916 I said it was not for a foreigner to suggest how strong America should be at If the position made such a precept from such a source improper then, the position to-day is surely more delicate still. In 1916 we were fighting; America was not. To-day America is building; Great Britain is not. It is clear from which side the initiative must come.

The business is one in which the people of this country must choose for themselves, and it is with this conviction very firmly in my mind that I have written what I have to say. The ties of gratitude and affection that hold me to this great people date from before my first visit to this country two and thirty years ago and, in sum, face me with a debt that I can not even try to pay. It would be unpardonable to presume on a position so much against me already. All I have tried to do, therefore, is to set out some chief elements of the situation as I see them. I can not pretend to hav exhausted the subject. But I shall be content if, without offense, I have made even a little more clear the factors that should guide this people in their choice.

ARTHUR POLLEN. [This article published in the New York Evening Post, Feb. 25, 1921.]

Naval Policy of the United States

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS

THIRD SESSION

ON

NAVAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES

INCLUDING DISCUSSIONS ON

LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS

NAVAL BUILDING PROGRAM, WITH COMPARISONS OF
VARIOUS TYPES OF SEACRAFT AND AIRCRAFT

DEVELOPMENT OF AVIATION AND THE NEED FOR AIR-
PLANE CARRIERS IN THE NAVY

AIR BOMBING OF THE U. S. S. "INDIANA"
THE PROPOSAL FOR A UNITED AIR SERVICE

[No. 12.]

NAVAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Including Discussions on

Limitation of Armaments.

Naval Building Program, with Comparisons of Various Types of
Seacraft and Aircraft.

Development of Aviation and the need for Airplane Carriers in
the Navy.

Air Bombing of the U. S. S. "Indiana."
The Proposal for a United Air Service.

Hearings before the

COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, February 4, 1921.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Thomas S. Butler, chairman, presiding, having before it for a discussion of the naval policy of the United States and kindred subjects, the following witnesses: Rear Admiral W. S. Sims, president of the United States Naval War College; Rear Admiral Bradley A. Fiske, retired; Admiral R. E. Coontz, Chief of Naval Operations; Rear Admiral Charles J. Badger, chairman, executive committee of the Navy General Board, and other members of the General Board; and Brig. Gen. William Mitchell, Assistant Chief of the Air Service, United States Army. Statement of REAR ADMIRAL W. S. SIMS, President of the United States Naval War College, Newport, R. I.

DISARMAMENT.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Sims, the General Board has submitted an estimate for $107,000,000 worth of ships to round out our fleet. That estimate has not been approved by the Secretary of the Navy, but nevertheless, it appears here before us and we will have to dispose of it. We have made some inquiry touching a question that is agitating the public very greatly just now, and that is the question of the attempt to be made among the nations to limit armament. It is not necessary to indicate to an officer like yourself anything further as to what we have in our minds. We would like very much to have your views in regard to the probable success of such a movement. So far as I am concerned, there is nothing else in my mind at this time to suggest to you. You have had a great deal of experience

(641)