The New York correspondent of the "Daily News" writes:—I have had conversations with an engineer, scientist and inventor, who played an important part in the war a: chairman of the Engineering Committee of the Submarine Defence Association, to which all leading British and American shipowners and insurance underwriters doing business in the threatened areas entrusted the duty of analysing and developing proposed devices minimizing the menace. for this purpose he had placed at his dis posal the funds and opportunities that were needed. His conclusions about the future of naval warfare are thus based upon full officio data and complete first-hand ivformation.
For Great Britain *these con clusions are of startling significance, and, if upheld, they chang" the entire outlook for our foreign policy.
"The war," said he; "was won on land. At sea, the submarine had proved itself potentially supreme. In the last week of hostilities the Germans, who had concentrated on tankers, sank nine. If Germany had had 1,000 U-boats in August, 1914, nothing could have saved Britain and the Allies.
"As it was, she had only some 36 U-boats at first, and usually only 8 or 9 were in use at any one time. On the average, each U-boat sunk cost the Allies £20,000,000 at least in loss and expenditure, a total of 4 billion pounds sterling. Yet the cost of the U-boat is comparatively negligible.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.