Admiral LEAHY. I have no information as to what our responsibilities may be after independence is granted to the Philippines, but my understanding is that we will have no further responsibilities. Mr. DELANEY. Of course, the only thought that has been expressed for some time, the one country in question is Japan. Last summer, or, rather, in 1936, I was asked by the chairman to make a visit to the Panama Canal and go up to Alameda, on the California coast, and the impression that I got at the Panama Canal was that the most vulnerable side would be the Pacific side, and it is not as adequately policed or defended as it might be. Do you agree with me in that statement?

Admiral LEAHY. It is my opinion that, with an American fleet in the Pacific and with a very small patrol defense provided for the. Canal, it would be exceedingly difficult for any foreign nation to accomplish any destructive work on the Panama Canal except by sabotage, which, of course, cannot be prevented by naval force. I believe that with the American Navy anywhere in the Pacific, any attack in force on the Panama Canal would be extremely hazardous. Mr. DELANEY. If that same condition prevailed here as in China, the ships could enter ports with convoys of troops. Do they get into China by using transports in that way?

Admiral LEAHY. China is entirely separated from Japan by water. Mr. DELANEY. If the same condition did exist here as in ChinaChina is a short distance comparatively, whereas they would have to travel 6,000 miles to get to our west coast to attack it.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct. If China had a fleet the difficulties encountered by the Japanese in the present situation would have been very serious.

Mr. DELANEY. I think so.

Admiral LEAHY. China has practically no fleet, therefore the invading armies have had free access to the coast line.

Mr. DELANEY. That is one of the reasons that is a good talking point for a bill of this type, for the reason that we find in this country, China, there are eight times as many people as there are in Japan, but China is unable to do anything about it, without any navy to speak of. That is a practical talking point for this particular bill to indicate that we do not want to be caught in the same position.

Admiral LEAHY. I personally hope that America will never get caught in the same condition.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I have heard statements made a number of times by various people that the Washington Naval Treaty had been absolutely lived up to by all the signatories to it. Is that true?

Admiral LEAHY. I think that all parties to the Washington Treaty complied with the letter of the treaty.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Possibly my knowledge of the treaty is limited. Is it not true that Japan was given a certain mandate for certain islands that had belonged to Germany prior to the World War?

Admiral LEAHY. Japan was given a mandate over certain German islands after the World War, but that had no relation to the Washington Treaty.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Has Japan fortified those islands?

Admiral LEAHY. I do not know.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Does anybody know? Is it possible for anyone to go there and inspect them, or is everybody kept away?

Admiral LEAHY. I am unable to answer that question.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I got the impression from your testimony when you stated that it would require a fleet three times the contemplated size to make an aggressive attack, that it would require us to have a fleet of that size, having in mind the length of our coast line, and, therefore, when the assumption is drawn that another country must have a fleet of similar size to attack us, that assumption is not true if they have a considerably shorter coast line.

Admiral LEAHY. I think that is correct. Such a country would have less need for local defense, so that the larger part of their fleet could be sent on an expedition.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I emphasize that, Mr. Chairman, because over the radio last night I heard some commentator quoting the admiral's testimony on the air, and drawing the assumption that another navy would have to be as great as that in order to attack us, which is not true, as brought out by the testimony today. I am glad that point is brought out.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Delaney said our coast line was 6,000 miles from the Japanese mainland. As a matter of fact, how close is the nearest territory of the United States to the Japanese mainland? Admiral LEAHY. It is 4,550 miles from Seattle to the mainland of Japan.

Mr. MAGNUSON. What about the Aleutian Islands?

Admiral LEAHY. That distance is approximately 600 miles.

Mr. MAGNUSON. It is 673 miles from the tip of the Aleutian. Islands to the mainland of Japan.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

Mr. DELANEY. I was referring to the coast line of America proper. Mr. MAGNUSON. Of course, the only justification for this expenditure is for our defense. We may assume that somebody possibly might start a war against us in the Pacific, and it has been brought out that that country may be Japan. Are you familiar with the situation today in Alaska where Japan has come over with her fishing fleet and moved in there?

Admiral LEAHY. I have read accounts of the activities of the Japanese fishing fleet in Alaskan waters.

Mr. MAGNUSON. And they traverse the distance with comparative ease, coming over from their mainland, going back and forth. It is not far from the mainland of Japan to the coast of Alaska and that vast fishing ground of America.

Admiral LEAHY. It is not so far but that small boats can make it without much difficulty.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I will ask a question of significance, sectionally. I represent a section. You made a statement that facilities on the west coast are wholly inadequate for maintenance of the entire fleet, and will be more inadequate if this program goes through. Is that correct?

Admiral LEAHY. I did not say they were totally inadequate. I said the facilities on the west coast for repairs to the fleet would be inadequate in time of war.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Do you mean inadequate as to the docking facilities, or just what specific inadequacy?

20680-38-No. 6203

Admiral LEAHY. I mean inadequate in regard to docking, repairs, and new construction.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Do you know whether or not there is contemplated a plan on behalf of the Department to increase the docking facilities on the Pacific coast?

Admiral LEAHY. It is under consideration and the docking facilities on the Pacific coast will be increased as soon as we can obtain money from Congress with which to construct the facilities.

Mr. MAGNUSON. In line with your program you have received a report from Admiral Morrell with reference to docking facilities on the west coast and in Hawaii?

Admiral LEAHY. I have such a report.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Have you made answer to that report yet?

Admiral LEAHY. The details are still under consideration. The probabilities of obtaining more facilities in the Pacific are being studied and Congress will be asked to provide the funds.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Are you also familiar with the fact that in the Pacific coast yards, inadequate as they are, that there has recently been a great number of lay-offs of skilled mechanics, so necessary to the Navy in those yards?

Admiral LEAHY. I think that is correct in all our navy yards. Employment of labor is handled by the office of the Assistant Secretary and I am not accurately informed in regard to it.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Supposing a major ship in the Pacific engaged in an encounter, should become crippled, what would be the possibility of bringing that ship for repairs, assuming the west coast yards were filled up, through the Panama Canal over to the Atlantic to be repaired?

Admiral LEAHY. It would be extremely difficult. Such repairs would probably have to wait until facilities were available on the Pacific coast.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I do not know whether you have been asked this question. All the naval ships use oil as a fuel-is that correct-the new type of ships?

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

Mr. MAGNUSON. There are no coal-burning ships.

Admiral LEAHY. No more coal-burning ships in the Navy.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Under your proposed plan and under the plan now for maintaining the Navy, about how much oil approximately do we use during the year?

Admiral LEAHY. Approximately 8,000,000 barrels.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Do you not think that the Navy Department, with the contemplated program such as this, should also submit a bill providing in time of war for conscription of oil, which is so necessary to the Navy, as well as conscription of men?

Admiral LEAHY. I have given no thought to that and I am unable to answer it.

Mr. HAMILTON. Admiral Leahy, several times in your statement yesterday, after giving the relative strength of ranking nationals of the world, you combined the battleship strength of Japan, Italy, and Germany, and compared this combined strength to our own battleship strength. World conditions would seem to make this observation quite pertinent to the issue now before us. If in these unusual times of undeclared warfare, the Panama Canal should become lost to our

use with the present American fleet all on the Pacific coast, with attack on both coasts at the same time, what would be the present adequacy of our defense on the Atlantic coast? In the time of such emergency what, without some foreign alliance, or adequacy of our own Navy as now proposed, would be the threat by sea and air to this, our National Capital, the city of Washington?

Admiral LEAHY. I stated yesterday that the proposed Navy is not adequate to provide a defense for attack on both coasts at the same time. It should be adequate to prevent an attack on either coast, but not at both coasts at once. In specific reply to your question as to what might happen to Washington with the fleet away from the Atlantic and the Panama Canal closed, I presume we would have to depend on our shore defenses until such time as the naval force could be brought to the Atlantic.

Mr. HAMILTON. Do you consider the increase of naval vessels provided in the present bill sufficient to give two fleets or two divisions of a grand fleet, each of equal strength, for adequate defense of our Atlantic and Pacific coasts at the same time?

Admiral LEAHY. In my opinion, the fleet should remain in strategic concentration and should not be divided between the two oceans. Mr. HAMILTON. Many Members of Congress feel that we should have fleets for defense on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Admiral LEAHY. That would involve a much greater increase than is submitted in this bill.

Mr. HAMILTON. What advantage would the present procedure give to the Atlantic coast?

Admiral LEAHY. The proposed increase is considered to be sufficient to prevent an attack on either coast by a foreign naval power. The proposed fleet would provide an adequate defense on the Atlantic coast when it is in the Atlantic ocean.

Mr. HAMILTON. Would it be proposed, after the present increase, to maintain another grand fleet on the Pacific side at one and the same time?

Admiral LEAHY. I am unable to say what might be done in the future, but in my own personal opinion it would be wrong to divide the fleet between the two oceans.

Mr. HAMILTON. What would be the situation if both coasts were attacked, if an attack was made on the Atlantic at the same time, and the canal were closed?

Admiral LEAHY. You would in that unfortunate situation have to wait until the fleet defeated the enemy in one ocean and then went around via the Straits of Magellan.

Mr. HAMILTON. It would be a very easy matter to close the Panama Canal.

Admiral LEAHY. I am not informed to that effect.

Mr. HAMILTON. Some nations have engaged in undeclared warfare. I am much interested in the defense of the Atlantic coast and in the provisions for increase of the fleet, so that the Atlantic might be protected as well as the Pacific coast.

Admiral LEAHY. If it is assumed that we have a prospect of being attacked on both coasts at one time, adequate naval provision should be made to repel that attack. This bill does not contemplate providing defense for both coasts at the same time.

Mr. HAMILTON. In your statement yesterday several times you combined the battleship strength of Japan, Italy, and Germany.

Admiral LEAHY. In so doing I had no thought of an expected combination of those nations against the United States. That was simply a study of what appeared to be a possible combination of naval forces. I believe we should take every possible combination into consideration when making a study of our naval needs.

Mr. HAMILTON. I think you did very well and your statement was very appropriate.

Mr. MOTT. I was not able to listen to your statement in response to a question relative to the size of the new battleships that Japan is building because I had to leave at that point yesterday. It has been generally reported that Japan is constructing a 46,000-ton battleship. The newspaper dispatches from Paris quoted French naval authorities to the effect that it was generally known that Japan was building a 46,000-ton battleship. Is Japan building a 46,000-ton battleship? Admiral LEAHY. I do not know.

Mr. Morт. Does this Government have an intelligence department or service whose business it is to get information of that kind?

Admiral LEAHY. The Navy Department has an Intelligence Office, but it has been unable to get that information in Japan.

Mr. MOTT. That is one point to clear up. We do not know anything about whether Japan is actually building a 46,000-ton battleship or not.

Admiral LEAHY. We have no positive information regarding the tonnage or the gun caliber of the new Japanese ships and it has been impossible for us to obtain that information from Japan.

•Mr. DELANEY. You might ask the same question in this country. We all know what we are doing in the navy yards. Is it possible for us to keep that information away from the Japanese? They know what we are doing here in the way of shipbuilding because it is made public.

Admiral LEAHY. They know all about what we are doing for many reasons. It is published in the hearings before your committee and is read by everyone. We have agreements with foreign nations which require that we shall tell them what we are doing in the way of naval construction. Presumably that information transmitted to other nations is not divulged. Your question is this: Is it possible for us to prevent such information getting out of the country? I think it would be possible, but no effort is made in this country to do that.

Mr. MAGNUSON. We want other countries to know what we are doing. That is one of the purposes of this bill.

Admiral LEAHY. I think the purpose of this bill is to get a Navy adequate to defend the United States.

Mr. MAGNUSON. And let the world know it.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, in response to Mr. McGrath's question, I think you said we are not in a position, even with this increase, if we have to carry on warfare in both oceans, to do so, but we can only operate in one ocean at a time.

Admiral LEAHY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, notwithstanding this additional increase, it would not be adequate to defend the Pacific and Atlantic at one and the same time.