DOOR NOT CLOSED

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 232, 1 October 1928, Page 7

DOOR NOT CLOSED

NAVAL LIMITATION

Britain Regards U.S. Note As 1 Frank And Friendly. AN HONEST ATTEMPT. (British Official Wireless.) (Received 1.30 p.m.) RUGBY, September 30. Most newspapers comment this morning on the United States reply J to the Anglo-French proposals, put < forward to overcome the difficulties 1 encountered at the Preparatory Com- 1 mission for Disarmament Conference. 1 All the papers agree in regarding the Note as frank, lucid and friendly. ] Many consider it was plain from the first that even though they had been i regarded sympathetically by the Japan- ; ese and Italian Governments to whom they were also submitted, the proposals j would not be regarded favourably by America, and that as their effectiveness . depended upon a general acceptance it was useless to put them forward. The main point which now has to be considered is what future steps can be taken to discover a basis for the resumption of the work of the Preparatory Conference, which was the sole object of the Anglo-French initiative. One or two journals comment on the fact that the far-reaching and detailed scheme of limitation put forward by the British delegates at the Geneva Naval Conference seems to have been forgotten. The British scheme, so far from leaving naval categories unlimited, actually proposed nine categories of warships varying from capital ships down to submarines, river boats and even coastal motor boats. Every type of surface and under watercraft came within the scope of the British limitation scheme. It is also recalled, in regard to the expression of the American willingness to agree to the total abolition of submarines, that the British willingness to do likewise was first expressed at the Washington Conference and repeated at the Geneva Conference. ! The "Times" says that the generally friendly tone of the American Note ■ should be fully recognised, and points out that it admits there may be room 1 for some further exploration of the ' question of naval armament within the limits of the American view of naval " necessities. ' The "Times" thinks "the very ieast I that can be said for the Anglo-French ' compromise is that it was a sincere effort to evade the deadlock in the Pre- " paratory Commission. There was a 1 strong feeling that something had to be done to further its work and anxious " exploration led in the end, by a process B of mutual concession, to a compromise f between Great Britain and France as a 1 basis for discussion by the other in--2 terested Powers. "It is very certain that in all this • transaction no offence was intended to " the United States, nor could it ever 1 have been assumed that the terms of 1 the agreement were exclusive or that 8 they were not the subject of modification in the course of negotiations with * other naval Powers. They were frankly t intended as a basis for discussion, and with that object they were immediately s submitted to the United States. e "It is most unfortunate that what r was sincerely intended as a contribution to the general solution of the dise armament problem should have been L, misunderstood also quite sincerely in s the United States and that the proposed ■- basis for discussion should have been y rejected almost unconditionally. "The best that can be said in the r. meantime is that, after all, in the ie American Note there are clear indican tions of a desire for further considerate tion. The door is not closed."

MR. HEARST'S VIEW.

U.S.A. MUST BE INVINCIBLE. (Australian Press Assn. —United Service.) (Received 1.30 p.m.) LONDON, September 30. Mr. William Randolph Hearst, prior to his departure for America, in a statement, said that the secrecy of the AnoTS-French compromise aroused the suspicion of the United States, which was always averse to secret diplomacy, the elimination of which was one of the reasons why America entered the war. "It is perfectly natural," he added, "that the United States should expect that a compact in which she is included should consider her interests, but the disposition of the United States to limit or abolish the submarine, is incomprehensible from the viewpoint of American welfare because, although she wants merely defensive armaments, nothing is mora" important considering her extensive coastline than the submarine.

"If, in addition to the extensive Air Force which we should have and actually must and will have, we had an extensive submarine fleet the United States would practically be immune from successful attack even if her Army and Navy could not compare with others. The American's objections to the submarine are purely sentimental, due to the horror of war aggravated by method with which they are not yet familiar.

"Nevertheless, Americans must realise that while exercising every effort to prevent war they must be prepared to make their country invincible."