The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1928.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1928, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1928.

THE FATE OF THE SUBMAR IXK. Thk American Secretary of State has suggested that the naval Powers should agree to abolish .submar.nos altogether. This proposal has been received politely enough by Britain, but in France it has aroused some resentment and has provided the occasion for much frank criticism of the Americans and their diplomatic methods. French journalists and statesmen are engaged is pointing out with some acrimony that the Americans will not hear of any reduction of what they regard as the indispensable minimum of battleships and cruisers. Also they are reminding the world at large that when at the Washington Conference in 1922 Britain proposed the abolition of the submarine, the United States joined with France and Italy in opposing it, and they naturally ask the reason for this change of front now. There is no that Od'ring Mb]

after the war American public feeling was deeply stirred against the submarine. The sinking of the Lusitania in particular had evoked a great outburst of resentment against the “viper of the seas.” The New York “Times” denounced “tho abhorred submarine’'; tho New York “Herald” asked why the world should perpetuate “outlaw warfare” ; Senator Borah declared that the supreme test- of the value of the Washington Conference would he whether it abolished the sid'mariiie and Colonel House, once confidential advisor of President Wilson, announced publicly that “submarines must, go.” But when tbc plan drafted by Mr Hughes for the reduction of naval armaments was produced, it was found to provide for a large number of submarines for all the naval Powers, and grave disappointment was expressed at this in America as well as in Britain. Tt was left, therefore, for the British Government to give a lead to tho other Powers in this matter, and Gird Leo, reprcj-ienting the British Admiralty, declared that the policy of his country “was not merely restrictions on submarines, but their total and linal abolition.” The Conference was thrilled hv this spontaneous olfer from Britain, “tbc possessor of tho largest and probably tho most efficient equipment of submarines in tbo world, to scrap tbo whole of this great (loot and disband the personnel, provided the other Powers would do the same.’’ But at Washington the French, Italian. and Japanese delegates, supported by the American Advisory Committee and the naval exports associated wit Ii the American delegation, opposed tho nholtion of the submarine; and in the end, at the suggestion of Mr F.lihu Root, the Conference agreed to the use of tbo submarine under certain definite rest net ions. There can be no doubt that the ehiof opjsisit ion to Britan’s proposal came from Fiance, lint there are plenty of sound reasons to support tho-e Powers, which. recognising that they cannot compete in warships and cruisers with Britain and America, regard the submarine us their only effective naval defence against unprovoked aggression. Frame lias already retorted sardonically that il Britain and America, will wrap all their warships she will destroy her .submarines. .Bill in Britain, a-r well as in France, it. is generally admitted I bat il was the opposition of the American delegates to Britain's proposal al Washington that enabled Fra nee. Italy and Japan to save the submarines. Under tbc circumstances "c can bardlv wonder, says a northern paper, that Mr Kellogg’s proposal has been r-u-eived with polite but Satirical scepticism. and that the French iicws| ape:’s are asking whether tin* Secretary of State l ami bis colleagues arc not thinking more of the coining Presidoni.nl election than of naval disarmament and world peace.