LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 5 August 1927, Page 3

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

(Australian it N.Z. Cable Association.)

AIR KEL LOG HAS MORES. WASHINGTON, Aug. 4

Air Kellogg commenting on the Geneva situation, said: “ ( am confident the work done at Geneva will make it possible after consultation between the Governments to find a basis for reconciling the divergent views and lead to

an early conclusion as to an agreement for the limitation of auxiliary naval vessels.”

Air Kellogg did not specify the basis of this hope. Many observers believe tile so-called “ early conclusion ” will not he before 193 L.

WASHINGTON. Aug. i

Air Kellogg, in liis statement, said the British proposals constituted an (iihniiced cruiser-building programme which the United States was regarding as neither necessary nor wise, hut, lie added, “ I am certain the failure this time kill not impair the cordial relations between the British Government and the United States.” POLICY REJECTED. GENEVA. Aug -I.

... Japan’s policy finally was rejected, experts pointing out the Limitation Conference could not accept the plan, which mentioned neither tonnage nor gun calibre.

AIR BALDWIN AND THE GENEVA CONFERENCE. OTTAWA, Aug. 1. Air Baldwin refused to comment on the break-down of the Geneva Conference. It is understood ho feels that he has been out of touch with the situation and prefers that a statement should emanate from London.

JAPANESE VIEWS. (Received this day at 11.0 a m.) GENEVA, Aug. 4. Baron Saito explained the Japanese agreed to the British figures for the teii-thousand-ton cruisers, and also the British plan for submarine limitation, which still remained apparently insoluahle. The Anglo-American differences mainly were in regard to cruisers, especially the gun calibre on which the Japanese views were not entirely in accord with the British. Therefore, tlie Japanese offered a compromise plan which was rejected. Baron Saito concluded by regretting the absence of a definite agreement, but declined to express views on the outcome of their efforts as a failure or breakdown. He was convinced the attempts to limit extravagance in competition by formal agreement as they are limited in practice by common-sense, will continue, and will succeed.

' MR BUIDGEMAN’S VIEWS. GENEVA, Auk. 4. Mr Bridgeman pointed out Britain did not complain of the American superiority in destroyers and submarines. The British proposals entail far greater savings. than the others. He understood they were not opposed in the main by the Japanese. He said they were unable to agree with the American claim to eight inch guns for second class cruisers, ns he belevcd it would result, in considerable increase in the offensive strength of \ emphasising if no common formula were acceptable to all the parties, there was no*spirit of antagonism indicated alTTong the three Bowers and still less was competition in new construction intended. Pleading Britain's need for small cruisers Mr Bridgenian . urged the geographical position of the • Mother Country and the Dominions must be born in mind, which no doubt was not easy for countries differently placed. Britain had a most anxious time during the Great War and who could forget the feeling and situation brought home to us when we could * see the spectre of starvation slowly y approach? Ho declared though Britain was heavily burdened with taxation and suffering industrial depres- ‘ sion, few Britons would demure to providing the money necessary to keep open the waterways for Britain's food and raw materials. It was rc- ' 4 gar clod as an insurance against unforeseen disaster. There was provision against danger lrom any particular country. DELEGATES’ RECOMMENDATION. GENEVA, Aug. 4. A joint declaration states that delegates agreed to recommend to respective Governments that a conference . provided by the Washington iieat-y should he held earlier than in August, ‘"T • 1031, i n order that decisions reached might bo enforced before the capital ship construction programme was commenced, name,'/ in November, 1031. Mr Gibson issued a statement that the American delegation was greatly impressed by Chamberlain's recent ile'laration that an Anglo-American war was already outlawed in the hearts ot both nations. We give thorough endorsement thereto, hut we find it dilwcult to reconcile the British conviction that war is outlawed, with their unwillingness to recognise our light to build a limited number of the type of ship we desire, because they were a problematical possession by us during | y ' the life of this Treaty and of a small ' number of eight inch gun cruiseis. Despite the fact that such apprehensions are amply covered by the proposed political clause releasing the signatories from the obligations of the j treaty, we are unable to understand why in a time of profound peace Britain deems a considerable programme of naval expansion is absolutely vital. We indicated our willingness to make the most substantial modifications respecting cruisers in order to meet the British claims regarding the number ot vessels. Any further concession would have involved a complete surrender of the right to •build ships responsive to our needs. We never contested the requirements of Britain, which were best met by a number of vessels ; but America’s geographical position and lack of bases require a larger type ol cruiser, with a longer cruising radius. Before mentioning the proposed political clause, Air Gibson said: “ We were so confident that nothing in the American policy could give ground for concern that we felt no hesitation in suggesting the clause.” He concluded, the subject should he dealt with on higher and broader grounds.

Mr Bridgcman said Britain would j willingly have signed the tveaty on the Y points whereon an agreement was reached, but this suggestion was not “A accepted. He concluded by saying: ™ “ Speaking to-day, not only on behalf of Great Britain and India, but lie was, authorised by the delegates of His Majesty’s Governments of Canada. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, to say that they are in agreement with this statement.