The Hokitika Guardian MONPAY, DEC. 18th, 1922. ARMAMENTS LIMITATION.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 December 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian MONPAY, DEC. 18th, 1922. ARMAMENTS LIMITATION.

In outlining the United States’ proposals for a limitation of armetnenta.

Mr C. E. Hughes, ili his speech at the opening of the Washington Conference in November last year, said that in order to deal with the question on an entirely reasonable and practicable basis, four general principles had been applied: (1) That all capital ship programmes, either actual or projected, should be abandoned; (2) that further reduction should be made through the scrapping of certain of the older ships; (3) that, in general, regard should lie had to the existing naval strength of the Powers concerned; (4) that capital ship tonnage should lie used as the measurement of strength for navies, and a proportionate allowance of auxiliary combatant craft he prescribed.

The detailed plans set out the proposed reductions and the future strengths and replacements of all the Powers represented at the Confe’cnce, not only in capital ships, hut also ili cruisers, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, and aircraft carriers. After the three principal naval Powers, Britain, America and Japan had reached a virtual agreement regarding the ratio

of their capital ship ntrent,h. which was the famous 6-6-3 ratio, France threw a bombshell into the Conference by proposing that she should build ten capital ships of 36,000 tons each, starting in 1026, and giving her by 1935, 3,50,000 tons. It was pointed out that if France bad been asked to reduce her present strength in capital ships in the same proportion as the chief Powers, her capital ship strength would have been reduced to 105,000 tons, instead of which she was not being asked to scrap any ships, and was being allowed to retain 221,000 tons. Snbsoqi’ontly France agreed to accept the capital ship ratio, but she indicated that she would refuse to accept any limitation in auxiliary craft below 330,000 toils of cruisers, destroyers etc., and 90,000 tons of submarines, or practically double her existing strength in those types, and this too, after Britain had proposed the total abolition of the submarine as a naval weapon. Italy indicated that, although she was entirely opposed to the French! proposals, she would he forced in the absence of any limiting agreement, to follow France's lead. France refusod to modify her proposals in any way, with the result that the 'Washington Conference instead of achieving a limitation of all classes of naval craft, had to rest content with a limit to the size, armament, and numbers of capital shjips, and the size and armament of aircraft carriers and cruisers, which was embodied in the Treaty. The Conference failed in that no limit was placed on the numbers of cruisers, destroyers and submarines that might be built by any Power, though resolutions were carried forbidding the use of submarines as commerce destroyers. Article 11 of the Naval Limitation Treaty provides that no vessel of war exceeding 10.000 tons displacement, other than a capital shin or aircraft carrier shall be buflt or acquired by any of the contracting Powers, and no such vessel shall carry a gun of a greater calibre than 8 inches. Now the cables give further details of the American pr<--posal. which is in effect one to complete the work of the Washington Conference bv securing a limitation in the construction and numbers of all classes of naval ships. j