Mr. COLE. Official information given in exchange with other governments?

Admiral LEAHY. Information given out by the different governments and exchanged between the governments parties to the treaty. Mr. COLE. What is the most recent official information you have had from Japan?

Admiral LEAHY. We have no official information from Japan except information published in their press.

Mr. COLE. Then your comparative statement of capital ships showing that the British Empire is building five is not official information?

Admiral LEAHY. The British building program of five battleships is official; we have received that information officially from Great Britain.

Mr. COLE. Never at any time have you received any official information from the Japanese Government?

Admiral LEAHY. The Japanese Government gives out no information in regard to their building program.

Mr. COLE. That is true now, but last year, did they not have official information in accordance with the treaty expiring in 1936?

Admiral LEAHY. We did have information up to that time, but Japan is now no longer a party to the treaty.

Mr. COLE. Then the other unofficial estimate which you have of the activities of other nations not a party to the treaty is based purely on rumor and not official at all?

Admiral LEAHY. I would not say on rumor, because information is published in the press abroad regarding building programs that are not given to us officially, and this information is presumably correct. Mr. COLE. Even though it is unofficial.

Admiral LEAHY. It is presumably correct, although it is unofficial. Mr. COLE. What is there about the information that stamps it as being official or unofficial?

Admiral LEAHY. Official information is transmitted by one government to another government.

Mr. COLE. Public announcement by a foreign government itself would be treated as not official?

Admiral LEAHY. I would consider it unofficial, but I would consider it reliable if it were a published announcement by the govern

ment.

Mr. COLE. What is the ability of our present naval strength to enforce the Monroe Doctrine? You intimated in your statement yesterday that it was questionable whether it could be enforced, whether we were able to enforce it or not. What I would like you to do is to emphasize that statement.

Admiral LEAHY. The ability of our present naval strength to enforce the Monroe Doctrine would be dependent absolutely upon the amount of force that was applied against the Monroe Doctrine.

Mr. COLE. In other words, the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine stands in the same position as the defense of our own continental territory.

Admiral LEAHY. From that point of view it does.

Mr. COLE. Is there any nation in the world that has a fleet large enough to make a successful invasion of the continental United States?

Admiral LEAHY. In order for any foreign nation at the present time to make a successful invasion of the continental United States, it would be necessary that they first destroy the United States Fleet. Mr. COLE. In order to destroy the fleet they would have to have a fleet themselves large enough.

Admiral LEAHY. It would be necessary for them to have a fleet of sufficient strength to destroy our fleet.

Mr. COLE. Is there any nation with a fleet of sufficient size to destroy our own fleet?

Admiral LEAHY. I should not like to admit that any nation now in existence is capable of destroying our fleet, but the British Navy is much more powerful than ours at the present time.

Mr. COLE. Then it is true that there is not one nation that does possess a fleet of sufficient size to constitute a threat, a threat which you foresee, which justifies the increase of our naval program.

Admiral LEAHY. That is not exactly true, because other nations are engaged in increasing the strength of their fleets, and it is my opinion that the American fleet should be of sufficient strength to offer a reasonable prospect of being able to defeat any single nation. If the other nations were not increasing the strength of their fleet at this. time, in my opinion it would not be necessary to authorize an increase in the strength of the American fleet, but other nations are increasing the strength of their fleets.

Mr. COLE. Would you say that we have followed an unwise course in the past 10 years in not building up to the full treaty strength allowed by the 1922 treaty? Was that a serious mistake?"

Admiral LEAHY. That would not have been a serious mistake if the other nations had not started to increase their navies beyond the treaty strength.

Mr. COLE. Have we lost anything by following the policy which we did follow?

Admiral LEAHY. Only that we are further behind in naval strength than we would have been had we built our Navy up to treaty strength.

Mr. COLE. It follows as a natural event that we are behind because it was the policy to fall behind. We did not drop so far behind that it is not possible for us to catch up in a reasonable period of 4 or 5 years?

Admiral LEAHY. I think it is possible for this Nation to build its Navy up to the desired strength in a reasonable time.

Mr. COLE. What I would like to have you state, whether you agree or not, is the advisability of having followed that policy, whether it was wrong to do it if we were to do it over again?

Admiral LEAHY. In my opinion, if we were to do it over again. with the knowledge that is now in our possession, we would have built the Navy up to treaty strength by this time.

Mr. COLE. We did not lose anything in prestige among the nations of the world in that way? Do you agree to that?

Admiral LEAHY. I am unable to answer that. I do not know what the other nations think about us.

Mr. COLE. Of course, none of us know that. I am certain we did not lose any money by following that line.

Admiral LEAHY. Not unless it is more expensive to build now than it was then. I am not informed in regard to that.

Mr. COLE. You know whether it costs more to build ships today than in 1926.

Admiral LEAHY. It does cost more to build battleships today than 1926.

The CHAIRMAN. No doubt the construction is more costly today than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

Admiral LEAHY. Construction is more costly today and the ships are larger and more complicated than they were then.

The CHAIRMAN. Along the line of the questions asked you by Mr. Cole, with reference to information in your statement yesterday, you said this:

Japan, since December 31, 1936, has not been bound by any form of naval limitations and would not even enter into an agreement to exchange information regarding her naval program as is now being exchanged under the London Treaty of 1936 among the United States, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and France. Italy, whose delegates helped frame the treaty of 1936, is still withholding information regarding her naval construct.on. Germany and Russia both exchange information with Great Britain, in accordance with bilateral treaties. The recently concluded Italo-German-Japanese anti-Communist protocol provides: "The competent government agencies of the signatory States shall operate together in reporting to each other the activities of the Comintern, as well as to communicate instructions and defense measures to one another."

That is the situation with reference to information as to what other nations are doing in regard to the building of different categories of warships?

Admiral LEAHY. Yes; I believe that to be an exact statement of the situation, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cole asked you if any other nation had a battle fleet or navy that would destroy the Navy of the United States. As long as we continue a building program commensurate with that of other navies, the answer would be no, would it not? Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. If we stop that program and other nations go forward, the answer would be yes.

Admiral LEAHY. That is also correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The objective of this bill is to keep our Navy on an even level with the strength of other nations?

Admiral LEAHY. That is my understanding of the purpose of the

bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, as long as that equal relation is maintained, as long as the ratio is maintained, it would be impossible for any other nation by itself, in all probability, to destroy the United States Navy.

Admiral LEAHY. So long as that ratio is maintained it would be exceedingly difficult for any other single Navy to successfully attack the Navy of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection I will read into the record a statement that appeared in a Senate hearing, a very important statement on this matter, as follows:

By that treaty

meaning the Washington-London Treaty

naval strengths, though limited, were so balanced that no one signatory power had sufficient strength to interfere with the rights of another signatory power without danger of being defeated in war. With the authorized balances estab

lished by that treaty lived up to, war between any of the great powers signing it became unlikely. But today that treaty is no longer in effect. Nations are no longer limited in what they can build, and the greatest step toward peace we ever made the balancing of naval power-no longer exists.

However, although there is no established balance in naval power which, if lived up to, will practically insure peace, we can still insure peace to the United States if we maintain for ourselves the relative naval power established for us by the Washington Treaty.

That is a fact, is it not?

Admiral LEAHY. It is my belief that if we maintain a ratio equal to that of the Washington Treaty, the likelihood of war against the United States will be very much lessened.

Mr. JENKS. I think you emphasized as a fact yesterday that three yards building submarines were the only yards that had constructed any submarines in the last 20 years, that is, since the World War. Admiral LEAHY. I did make that statement.

Mr. JENKS. I am wondering if under this proposed plan those three yards could take care of the building of submarines that this bill calls for, and the bill that has already been passed?

Admiral LEAHY. I believe that is correct. The question can be answered better by the Chief Constructor when he appears before the committee. He will have accurate information in regard to that

matter.

Mr. SUTPHIN. In these new ships what do you contemplate making the caliber of your main batteries?

Admiral LEAHY. The characteristics of the new ships have not yet been approved, and if they were approved I should not like in a public hearing to state what our plans are.

Mr. SUTPHIN. What is the width of the Panama Canal?

Admiral LEAHY. 110 feet, width of the lock.

Mr. SUTPHIN. The larger ships are the Lexington and the Saratoga.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

Mr. SUTPHIN. What is their width?

Admiral LEAHY. The Lexington is 108 feet.

Mr. SUTPHIN. Would it be possible to construct battleships above 40,000 tons and pass them through the Canal?

Admiral LEAHY. I would prefer to have the Chief Constructor answer that, but I think they would pass through the locks. The British battle cruiser Hood of 42,100 tons has passed through the locks.

Mr. McGRATH. Our naval national defense consists finally of three important links, all of which are dependent upon each other, the Navy, the Merchant Marine, and facilities for building and repairing ships in America. In the interest of national defense, should not a number of the vessels provided for in the bill now before the committee, be built on the Pacific coast for the purpose of rehabilitating the ship-building industry of the west coast? As you know there has been no ship construction on the west coast since the war, as a result of which our shipyards have fallen into a state of disrepair. Admiral LEAHY. With the purpose of improving the national defense I should like very much to have shipbuilding facilities on the Pacific coast in addition to those in existence there now.

Mr. McGRATH. It is true that the two navy yards on the west coast at Bremerton and at Mare Island are not working up to capac

ity because the Department needs them in an emergency for repairs. Then ship construction should go to private yards, but the private yards, scarcely any of the large private yards have been working since the war.

Admiral LEAHY. I am not informed with sufficient accuracy to say whether or not the navy yards on the west coast are operating to full capacity. Whether they are or not it would be advantageous to the national defense to have available on the Pacific coast commercial shipbuilding industry in addition to that which is available

now.

Mr. McGRATH. Is it possible in this bill to have certain of this construction allocated to the west coast?

Admiral LEAHY. So far as I know there is nothing in this bill that has any bearing on the locality in which the ships may be constructed.

Mr. McGRATH. Along that line, Mr. Chairman, before we have finished, I expect to introduce an amendment to this bill asking for the allocation of some of this construction to the west coast.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, every member has the right to introduce such amendments as he desires for the consideration of the committee. You have that privilege when the time comes and the balance of the members reserve the right to reach their own decision on the amendments.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yesterday in your statement you said the Navy insures our national integrity, supports our national policy, guards the continental United States and our overseas possessions, and gives protection to our citizens abroad.

Will you explain how far that extends and exactly what you mean by that?

Admiral LEAHY. I will endeavor to elaborate upon my statement of yesterday, which seems to me to cover the ground thoroughly. The Navy insures national integrity by preventing an attack on our shores.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I can see that, but I want to know about our overseas possessions and protection of our citizens abroad.

Admiral LEAHY. The Navy guards our overseas possessions by making it difficult or impossible for a foreign nation to undertake an invasion of our insular possessions.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Is that all the overseas possessions that this involves our insular possessions?

Admiral LEAHY. Yes. I should like to change the word "overseas" to "insular" in my statement of yesterday. I meant to say "insular" possessions. We normally speak of them as overseas possessions.

The CHAIRMAN. By using the words "overseas possessions" it necessarily means insular possessions.

Admiral LEAHY. That is my understanding, and that is the term generally used. However, "insular" is more nearly accurate because that is exactly what is meant.

The CHAIRMAN. Island territory.

Admiral LEAHY. Our island territory, outside the continental limits of the United States.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Protection to our citizens abroad-how far does that extend?