Talk of disarmament is in the air; Uncle Sam and John Bull are cautiously sounding each other's attitude; Japan is keenly observant. Underneath the plans and appropriations for bigger navies lies the fundamental doubt as to whether expenditure is defensible. What hesitancy there exists is largely due to the increasingly questionable value of the modern dreadnought in warfare, for as a naval weapon it is being rapidly superseded by the other and more effective implements.

Recent events show that the battleship's usefulness has passed its maximum point. A serious inquiry on the advisability of continuing the construction of mammoth cruisers has been made by the British Council of imperial Defense. Admiral von Scheer, who commanded the German fleet at Jutland, has expressed the view of the Fatherland that the surrender of its surface vessels contains little excuse for regret. Secretary Daniels has ordered for the near future a definite test of the battleship's vulnerability which may have an important effect in determining our naval policy. Public opinion everywhere seems adverse to pursuing the race for such armament.

The reason for the growing disfavor of the battleship is to be found in the revolutionary methods of sea warfare adopted in the world conflict, Submarines, airplanes and airships were the real factors, while the imposing fighting ships of the hostile navies were of far less service than in former times.

It is hard to find a valid argument for the costly battle cruiser, open to attack from above and below; its worth is gravely debatable, In preference, experts favor a squadron of flying machines, whose power in time of war is only equaled by their commercial use in time of peace. The evidence plainly indicates that the present battle fleets are becoming herds of "white elephants", and therefore are failing to justify the annual outlay of millions of dollars for their maintenance.