TURNED DOWN.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 231, 29 September 1928, Page 9

TURNED DOWN.

NAVY COMPROMISE

Vigorous Rejection By America Of Anglo-French Plan.

WORSE THAN GENEVA. (Australian and >".Z. Press Association.) < Kecoivftd 11 a.m. I WASHINGTON, September 2>S. The text of the identic Xoio replying to the Franco-British naval proposals has been published. It vigorously rejects the proposals and reveals tliat-the United States limitation thesis remains unchanged since the Geneva Three-Power Conference.

The Note declares that the proposals are even more objectiouable than thos<; offered at Geneva, and concludes by stating that the United States remains willing to use its best efforts to obtain a basis for further naval limitations satisfactory to all naval Powers, including these unrepresented at the Geneva tripartite conference.

America is willing to consider French. Italian or other special needs for any particular class of vessels, but expects others to accord similar consideration to American needs. The Note further suggests that such consideration could be achieved by permitting any Power to vary the percentage of tonnage in classes within the total tonnage, provided the proportion of such variation were agreed upon.

Thus, if one class of vessel were increased it should be deducted from the tonnage allotted to other classes.

The Note states that the bases of the Anglo-French proposals are: "The limitations which the Disarmament Conference is to determine will deal with lour classes of naval vessels: (1) Capital ships over 10.000 tons with greater than eight-inch guns; (2) aircraft carriers over 10,000 tons; (3) surface vessels of 10,000 tons or less, with over six and up to eight-inch guns; (4) ocean-going submarines over 000 tons."

The American Government in reply says the first two-classes were regulated by the Washington Conference, and the British and French propose to limit only cruisers of 10.000 tons or less, and submarines over GOO tons. The United States holds that the limitations, to be effective, must apply to all combative vessels. "None would deny that" modern cruisers or destroyers armed with sixinch guns have a very high offensive value, especially to any nation possessing well-distributed bases over the world."

The reply points out that the restrictions suggested by Britain and France would affect types that are peculiarly suited to the needs of the United States.

The Note points out that restrictions on cruisers of 10,000 tons or below, aimed with six to eight-inch guns "would only add enormously to the comparative offensive power of the nation possessing a large merchant tonnage on which preparations may bo made in peace time for the mounting of six-inch guns."

The reply recalls Britain's Geneva proposals to divide cruisers into two classes, and adds: "This same proposal is now presented in an even more objectionable form, which limits large cruisers suitable td American needs, but frankly places no limits whatever, upon cruisers carrying six-inch or smaller guns."

The Note indicates the compromise is unacceptable, not only because it puts the United States at a decided disadvantage, "but because it discards the principle of limitation as applied to an important combatant type of vessels."

As concerns submarines the reply points out that the United States cannot accept the limitations of 600-ton submarines, leaving those of less tonnage unrestricted, since the latter have equal destructive force and can be armed with live-inch guns. "The United States would gladly abolish the submarine in conjunction'with all nations." but otherwise "they should be limited to reasonable tonnage or number."'

BLUNT AND CRITICAL.

AMERICA IRRITATED.

(Australian Press Assn.—United Service.)

(Received 11 a.m.)

WASHINGTON, September 28.

A blunt and critical rejection of the Franco-British naval agreement has beert transmitted to London and Paris by the United States Government.

The American identic Note to the two Power's, made public on Friday by the State Department, said: "The American Government has 110 objection to any agreement between France and Britain which those countries think will be to their advantage and in, the interest of the limitation of armaments, but naturally cannot consent that such an agreement should be applied to the United States."

Specilically, the American objection to the accord was based on the contention that it would restrict only the types of ships, '"peculiarly suited to the needs of the United States,'' and leave unlimited combat ships of great value to any nation having widely distributed fuelling bases or great merchant marine tonnage.

The Note is marked throughout by sharpness in tone and frankness in stating the American point of view, and it plainly indicates the irritation felt in Washington over the Franco-British procedure.