Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1930. A BOLT FROM THE BLUE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 36, 12 February 1930, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1930. A BOLT FROM THE BLUE

On general principles it was safe to presume that there would be a hitch somewhere. Vaguely based on a bitter experience of the incurable perversity of men and things, this presumption had, so far as we were concerned, survived all the sweetening of Anglo-American relations that had been effected by Mr. Mac Donald's cordial eloquence and his solid concessions at Washington and more than a fortnight's almost continuous optimism emanating from the Naval Conference. But after the publication of the documents, which' were, in effect, interchanged by the principal parties on Friday, optimism seemed to have at last acquired a solid foundation and' scepticism to be without excuse. The British White Paper and the Ameri-1 can delegation's statement appeared to cover the whole ground in substantially the same terms, and were, said to be regarded by the British Prime Minister and the' American Secretary of State as laying the foundations of "a definite and satisfactory agreement" both between their respective countries and between the two of them and Japan.. So bright did the prospect appear that, even if the claims of France and Italy, which have sometimes threatened to block the Conference, could not be satisfied, a Three-Power Agreement to which they would not be parties was considered practicable. The third week of the Conference accordingly promised to close yesterday with brighter hopes 'than ever, but just at the last moment came a bolt from the blue which has upset all calculations. Hitherto substantially the whole discussion as between Britain and the United States had related to cruisers. It is in this class, of vessel that the widely different needs of the two countries makes the exact parity vainly attempted at Geneva by the Conference of 1927 peculiarly absurd. Mr. Mac Donald opened the, way for the resumption of negotiations by abandoning the minimum of small cruisers on which the Baldwin Government had then insisted, and the documents published on-Friday left no room for quarrel on this once bitterly contested point. Nor did the statement of the United States delegation !as originally published open up the possibility of any new cause of dispute. The suggestion that the battleship fleets, in which Britain is at present two vessels to the good, should be equalised in 1931 instead of 1936, the date fixed by the Washington Treaty, was the most important of the other points, and it was certain that no opposition could be raised to this proposal either by the British Government- or by the nation in its present mood. But, first in a guarded fashion by two London papers and afterwards positively but unofficially, a new point has been reported which presents indefinite possibilities of trouble. The strange way in which the secret had been guarded'and the official silence with which public curiosity about it has been baffled both in London and in Washington strengthen the fear that those who have received the new proposal agree with those who made it in regarding it as of crucial and even perilous importance. ' In the; article .reported yesterday the naval correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," whose lively appreciation of the great issue at stake has throughout presented a welcome contrast to the blind acquiescence of too many British authorities, merely referred to "the reported intention of the United States to bring forward a new formula for battleship formula." But, according to "The Times," the proposal had , already been made, and the "Daily Telegraph," relying doubtless on later information than was available when its correspondent's article was written, confirms the statement, which is as follows: —

Among the suggestions made in the full' American memorandum is a proposal that the United States should have the right to build a battleship of the Rodney type—a 33,900 tons vessel with 16in guns—if she consents to scrap four of her older and smaller ships, instead of the three that it would bo necessary to scrap to got down to the Washington Treaty figure of 15 battleships.

The intention, of which the "Daily Telegraph's" naval correspondent said that "nothing could be more untimely and more prejudicial to the prospects of the Conference," has therefore been realised, but we might amend his statement by adding th^at, if anything could be more prejudicial than the proposal itself, it is the manner of its disclosure, or, perhaps we should say, its partial suppression. Why has a matter of such supreme importance and delicacy been allowed to leak out in this piecemeal and unaulhoritative fashion, which leaves some essentials still in doubt and inevitably excites suspicion and animosity? What "The Times" and the "Daily Telegraph" agree in affirming, the political correspondent of the "Daily Herald" dolefully accepts, and the Press Association's correspondent calls "a definite proposal likely to reopen the whole battleship question," must be treated as a reality in spite of the fact that neither in London nor in Washington is a single official to be found who can say anything about it. Tn Washington the reason why flic

officials have nothing to say is that they know nothing, but they give a very sound reason for supposing thai there is nothing to know.

The State Department officials say that they havo no knowledge of a pro-posal-by the United States Naval Delegation in Xondou that the United States be permitted to build a battleship of the Rodney typo. The State Department points out that such a move would entirely conflict with the American policy of limitation and reduction.

London's agreement with Washington on this point is complete. It would, indeed, be a flat contradiction not merely of, American policy byt of the whole object of the Conference if the machinery of limitation and reduction are made a cover for the building- of the world's record battleship by one of the parties. Yet it seems incredible that the American delegation with the Secretary of State at its head can have conceived such a proposal not merely on its own responsibility but without even sending the While House a week-end telegram to say what it was doing. American diplomacy has done some funny things before now, but surely nothing quite so funny as that. For the present, at any rate, it is in an awkward dilemma, for if the delegation have made a proposal which the President disapproves, why does he not say so and have it withdrawn? And if they have not made it, why cannot they say so? A still worse face is put upon the matter by a London message:

' ' The American delegation officially refuses either to admit or deny that it ever made the demand, but imofficially it is indisputable that the demand was included in Mr. Stimson's Note issued last week, but was expunged from the summary of it issued to 'the Press. It was upon the latter precis that hopes of a virtual Anglo-American agreement wero based, whereas the truth now seems to be that the United States, in the name of disarmament, is claiming thoi right to uuild tho world's most powerful battleship.

One might have supposed that the official falsification of the published precis of an important document by expunging one of its vital points was a sheer responsibility. The stupidity of. such a procedure would be even more incredible than its dishonesty, yet the Press Association's correspondent categorically declares the fact to be "indisputable." In such a choice of incredibles it is certainly best for the present to suspend judgment. Conceivably, the blunder—the' blunder, that is to say, not of making the demand but of expunging it— may have been the work of some unauthorised subordinate. But in any case the best way to limit the mischief is to publish a precise statement of the facts as promptly as possible. Meanwhile a cloud has descended over the Conference, and probably even Mr. Mac Donald's optimism has been replaced by despondency^^ _'