The CHAIRMAN. Did this Government use every effort possible to continue those treaties limiting naval armaments?

Admiral LEAHY. I believe this Government took every possible step to induce other nations to continue the treaties of Washington and London in 1922 and 1930, and to make further reductions in naval armaments.

The CHAIRMAN. In the debate Friday on the floor of the House there was some statement made that this Navy was being built for aggression. You made some comment in your statement a moment ago. Would you mind restating your views as to whether or not this increase should be classified as one for aggression or one for defense of the continental United States?

Admiral LEAHY. In my opinion the 20 percent increase in combatant strength which is asked for in this bill will not in any way approach a naval strength that would warrant undertaking the projection of an attack against the shores of any naval power. It is in my opinion completely insufficient to justify undertaking such

a task.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the President in his message said in the last paragraph, "Such protection is and will be based not on agression but on defense."

The object and purpose of this legislation then is not to construct a Navy for the purpose of attacking foreign shores, but is solely for the purpose of affording adequate defense, in view of the building program that other nations are engaged in, to the continental United States and its insular possessions.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. What I particularly had in mind was the Hawaiian Islands. Undertaking that defense does not include the Philippines, does it?

Admiral LEAHY. It would be almost as difficult to project an offensive naval power to the Philippines as it would be to make an attack on the mainland of Asia, and the Navy which America now has and the Navy which it will have when it is increased by the authority contained in this bill will be seriously inadequate to the task of sending a naval force to the Philippines.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore the defense is based not any further than the Hawaiian Islands?

Admiral LEAHY. The defensive line of the American Navy at the present time reaches from the Aleutian Islands to the Hawaiian Islands, to Somoa, and to the Canal, and that line must be covered to some extent for scouting purposes. There is also in the Atlantic a defensive line that runs from the Canal to the Virgin Islands, and to the coast of Maine, which must be covered in case of trouble in the Atlantic.

The CHAIRMAN. As the ranking naval officer giving your military opinion, you state that this addition to the Navy is not sufficient for aggression against a first-class naval power.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement was made on the floor in the debates that this might be an effort toward policing the world. Is the addition called for sufficient for any such undertaking?

Admiral LEAHY. I would say that it is not sufficient for any such undertaking, but I do not know accurately what is meant by policing

the world. This proposed Navy is barely adequate to provide defense against attack on our shores and our island possessions, and beyond that it should not go.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you say that this increase is barely adequate to protect our mainland and our insular possessions.

Admiral LEAHY. In consideration of the present building program of foreign nations it is barely adequate.

The CHAIRMAN. It would not under any conditions be sufficient to protect us on both oceans and the Panama Canal at the same time. Admiral LEAHY. It will not be sufficient for that.

The CHAIRMAN. Then as a matter of fact, this addition places us in this position, that we have only a Navy that can afford protection to one coast at a time.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. You stated briefly what would be your line of patrol defense on the Pacific. What would be your line of defense in the Atlantic?

Admiral LEAHY. It is difficult to say where the defensive operation would take place in either ocean, but the line in the Atlantic that would have to be covered goes from the coast of Maine to the Virgin Islands and to Colon in the Canal Zone.

Mr. MAAS. You mentioned the 5-5-3 ratio which embraces the United States naval policy and the necessity for maintaining that ratio. What is Japan doing and what has she done in the way of construction to disturb the 5-5-3 ratio?

Admiral LEAHY. I am unable to give you any accurate information in regard to the naval building program of Japan. They have built many more cruisers than we have built. They have expanded their underage destroyer force to upset the 5-5-3 ratio. They are supposed now to be constructing some battleships.

Mr. MAAS. The foundation for the request for this expansion has been built upon the increases in the navies of the other powers? Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

Mr. MAAS. We must know what these other powers are doing if we are to know what we must do.

Admiral LEAHY. I wish you would tell me what some of them are doing.

Mr. MAAS. Then how was the proportion arrived at when this bill was drawn up?

Admiral LEAHY. I have made no statement that the proportions in this bill are correct. I said that the increase which this bill would authorize will improve our relative position in regard to the other naval powers. We know defintely what Great Britain and France are doing because they are parties to a treaty which requires them to tell us and we tell them. We know very little about what the other nations are doing. You mentioned Japan. We know practically nothing about the Japanese building program—

Mr. MAAS. In what way is our national policy endangered and by whom?

Admiral LEAHY. I have no thought that our national policy is particularly in danger at the moment.

Mr. MAAS. Do you anticipate a change in the situation that would require a change in our naval establishment in its size?

Admiral LEAHY. I am unable to venture an opinion as to what may happen in the future.

Mr. MAAS. What contingencies are we preparing for in this expansion program?

Admiral LEAHY. So far as the Navy is concerned, we are hoping to have a Navy of sufficient strength to prevent or to make unlikely a successful attack against our shores or against our possessions.

Mr. MAAS. But we still will not have a Navy capable of doing that. If the United States were involved in hostilities in the Pacific, could we look for any substantial naval aid to the United States?

Admiral LEAHY. That, of course, is a matter which would be handled by the diplomatic representatives of the Government.

Mr. MAAS. From the naval standpoint could we expect substantial outside naval aid? If we engage in hostilities in the Pacific, can we anticipate substantial naval aid from any other power?

Admiral LEAHY. In making our plans for a sufficient national defense, it is not possible to expect assistance from elsewhere. We must make our plans to take care of our own difficulties.

Mr. MAAS. That is a wise policy.

Admiral LEAHY. It is a necessary one from the point of view of the Navy.

Mr. MAAS. Particularly in view of our neutrality policy, we should not depend on assistance from anyone else, but if we should be engaged in hostilities on both the Pacific and the Atlantic, if there were hostilities in the Atlantic on account of European disturbances at the same time, in what position do we find ourselves? In other words, can we defend our Atlantic coast if we have hostilities in the Pacific at the same time?

Admiral LEAHY. If both coasts were threatened, there is not sufficient strength in the proposed Navy to guard both coasts.

Mr. MAAS. Is it the intention of the Navy to put on the Atlantic any substantial number of these ships contemplated in this bill? Admiral LEAHY. That is too far in the future to have any plans prepared at this time.

Mr. MAAS. I am wondering just what it is you intend to do with this Navy you are asking for. How are we going to arrive at a conclusion as to whether you need it?

Admiral LEAHY. We arrived at the conclusion that we need it because the other nations have expanded their navies and we have not, and it is necessary that our Navy be expanded to approach balance or keep balance with foreign navies.

Mr. MAAS. No one could accuse us of having started this naval race. We not only took the initiative in getting a naval armaments limitation, but we never have built up to the limits of the treaty, in the hope that we might have further curtailment.

Admiral LEAHY. We have not yet built up to the limits of the Washington treaty.

Mr. MAAS. Have other major powers built up to that limit to the best of your knowledge?

Admiral LEAHY. Yes; both Great Britain and Japan have built. up to the limits of the Washington treaty and have built beyond the limits of the Washington treaty.

Mr. MAAS. With the Navy as it will be if this program is carried out, would we be in a position to carry on an aggressive overseas war? Admiral LEAHY. We would not.

Mr. MAAS. Would we have transport facilities and convoys available to carry an expeditionary force, for instance, into the Pacific? Admiral LEAHY. We would be able to obtain transports, I believe, in time that would carry some troops if the sea were safe.

Mr. MAAS. I am assuming that there is a hostile fleet operating in the Pacific. Have we enough transports and could we commandeer enough commercial ships and would we have sufficient convoys, to take a major expeditionary force into the Orient operating against a hostile fleet.

Admiral LEAHY. We have not a sufficient number of transports nor a sufficient naval force to undertake that kind of an expedition. Mr. MAAS. Is there any nation on earth that has a number of commercial ships or transports and convoys to make an invasion of the United States possible?

Admiral LEAHY. Many nations have a sufficient number of transports to invade the United States if they could eliminate our Navy before they started the expedition.

Mr. MAAS. In other words, the only protection we have against invasion is a Navy adequate to prevent enemies from ever reaching our shores.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

Mr. MAAS. It is necessary to meet the enemy at sea and prevent him from coming to our shores if we are to prevent substantial damage, is it not?

Admiral LEAHY. It is.

Mr. MAAS. Would you say that because we had a Navy which was a far-reaching arm, that that necessarily was predicated upon the intention to invade some other country?

Admiral LEAHY. The Navy of the United States at the present time and as visualized as far into the future as I can look, has no purpose of carrying on an invasion of other powers, and it will not be of sufficient strength to do that.

Mr. MAAS. The Navy has no other policy than to enforce the national policy of the United States.

Admiral LEAHY. That is the purpose of the Navy.

Mr. MAAS. We all know that the national policy of the United States is not to acquire territory by aggression and not to invade any foreign country, and the Navy has no other policy than that.

Admiral LEAHY. The Navy has no other policy than that. Mr. CHURCH. The President's message and your talk here this morning set forth both the policy of the Navy and of the country, and we have that in mind. It is recent. You do not say anything this morning about the term that was used by the President last fall at Chicago, the term "quarantine." Will you explain the word quarantine insofar as the word should be used at this time and why you do not mention that subject in your talk this morning? I am confused and I believe that a great many are confused about the nature of that word, quarantine, in connection with our policy.

Admiral LEAHY. A quarantine is a word that is not used in any other sense in the Navy than a medical term. A quarantine means

that you do not let any person with a contagious disease come to you and you do not permit your sick people to go outside of the area in which they are confined. The word quarantine is not in our vocabulary except as a medical term.

Mr. CHURCH. Now, will you go ahead and explain and read into it if you can, or read out of it, the President's message that led to this bill here?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I object to the question.

The CHAIRMAN. He may ask the question.

Mr. CHURCH. I am anxious to find out whether or not it is proposed to have, not merely by this bill but in the future, a larger program of aggressiveness, which you state takes three times the present program after we have added the 20 percent in this bill. Also is it in the minds of anyone or was it in the mind of someone to quarantine other nations? I understood at the time the mere word "quarantine" meant rather putting them away because of unhealthy conditions, or policing unhealthy conditions. I am wondering why you did not bring into your statement this morning the quarantine that was mentioned last fall when this subject first arose?

Admiral LEAHY. It seems unreasonable to expect me to tell you what the President had in mind when he used the word "quarantine." The thought of quarantine has not entered into the estimates of the Navy in regard to this bill.

Mr. CHURCH. We are all anxious to clarify the national policy of our country, and at the beginning of the discussion of this policy last fall this word “quarantine" was a new terminology used in international law. Will you attempt to connect that up in any way, or can you?

Admiral LEAHY. I am unable to connect it up in any way with this Navy bill.

Mr. CHURCH. Since that time experts in international law have thought a great deal about that word "quarantine." It is used, and I am familiar with it as you have stated it. But I am interested in what the future policy of the United States is going to be after a bill like this is passed.

Admiral LEAHY. The present policy of the United States and any future policy it may have is not formulated in the Navy Department. I have no idea what the future policy may be.

Mr. CHURCH. The impression was that the word "quarantine" was connected with the situation abroad at that time, and I have been wondering just what was meant by this word "“quarantine."

Admiral LEAHY. I would be glad to help you, but I do not see how I can give you any information that would be useful in clarifying that question.

Mr. CHURCH. Assuming that this 20-percent-increase bill goes through, then in connection with your statement that to have an aggressive naval force it would take three times as much, how many years would it take if we approved the larger requirements, to complete such a program of building?

Admiral LEAHY. I can only make a guess at that. I will say that with existing shipbuilding facilities it might require about 20 years to make three times the increase that is proposed in this bill.