NAVAL CONFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 8 February 1930, Page 5

NAVAL CONFERENCE

SUBMARINE QUESTION

(United Press Association—By Electric Telegruph.—Copyright.)

LONDON, Feb. 6.*

It is understood M. Tardieu. at Thursday’s plenary sitting will submit France’s submarine proposals which include a suggestion that The Hague convention should be applied to submarines requiring an agreement that submarines attacking merchantmen must guarantee the safety of passengers. France dqsires this to be afterwards submitted to the League of Nations for signature of all countries possessing submarines. It is stated Biitain is not enthusiastic about this suggestion. With America she originally .proposed the abolition of submarines and Mr MacDonald previously clearly defined the present conference as not being concerned with discussing the rules of warfare under which tlie French proposal would come. It is considered unworkable and while, Britain still, intends to press for the abolition, negotiations will be directed towards the limitation of submarines.

LATEST TERMS

FOR NAVAL LIMITS

LONDON, Feb. .6. ' In a statement to the world’s press, Mr Stimson (United States Secretary), has referred to the progress of the Naval Conference. He pointed out that Britain and America had already agreed on parity in principle, It was now' possible to. go. further, Tlie American delegates suggested, firstly, that, as; regards Britain, there should fye immediate parity in every class of

..ship. America, at present, had an advantage of thirty thousand tons in ; the large cruiser tonnage. Britain had an advantage of 42,000 tons in the

; light cruiser tonnage. The United l .States would suggest that each country \ should ’have the option of exactly du- / plica ting tlie other’s cruiser fleet. Britain thus could reduce the number of her small cruisers, and could increase the . number of her large cruisers, and America could act vice versa. As regards . battleships, he said, • America suggested a reduction on both •, isides, in order to give an equality in y .the year 1931, instead of in the year •1942.

, America; also suggested an equal tonnage in destroyers, and aircraft carriers,-: and. the lowest submarine tonnage possible.-. The United States would .Aveleome the abolition of submarines, if .all of the-five Powers consented; but she suggested, in any event, that they -should-not attack merchantmen without providing for the safety of the passengers. Secondly, said Mr Stimson, as re-gards-Japan, the United States sug- • gested the same ratio for every class or her : ships. y v America, he added, did not make 'any proposals to France aiid Italy, but she made the suggestions that an

tj italiap-Fronch agreement was Essential to the contemplated agreement. The American delegate's maintained' that there.should be an agreement bn every ; item.; and were hopeful. Vi

EFFECT OF.: THE PROPOSALS

WASHINGTON, iFeb:, 7. A contrast is drawn here between 3vjx.; Stimson, theU.S.A.. Secretary’s statement to-day .at London^— whereby the United States would be given 327 thousand tons of cruiser strength—and .. .the ; .fact that 315 thousand tons was tentatively suggested last year, 300,000 totns of which would comprise .the total that is provided for in America’s , adopted building programme; and also the known desire of President Hoover v the strength might be reduced i to 285,000 tons. f It is, however, pointed out, that it would be necessary, in carrying out Mr Stimson’s proposals, for the United States to sacrifice five of the 10,- • 000 ton cruisers that are called for in • ■ tUe - authorised fifteen cruiser programme of 1929. This sacrifice; none the' less, would be exclusively in blueprints, as none of the work' on the ■ crniseVs'-in question has yet begun. It is, : "furthermore, felt that the United 51 Statejr would have nothing to fear from the British superiority in total cruiser tonnage, due to America’s ' greater number bf ten thousand ton type.

MOMENTOUS STATEMENT

(Received this day at 8 a.m.) vl-' LONDON, Feb. 7. *« 'tous events of the

Among the morrien.. ;\'}iistory of AngloAmericnn relations, ; w.ll be. the statement issued by Mr Btimson yesterday night. This proposes to solve the cruiser problem which was unsolved by Messrs Hoover arid MacDonald, by giving United States eighteen large cruisers and Britain fifteen, and compensating Britain with 42,000 tons advantage in small cruisers. . . , 'The Daily Telegraph Havre correspondent says: If a complete parity be achieved next year, Britain must pre-

sumably be prepared to scrap four Iron Dukes now organised as, a training squadron, and possibly, also the battle cruiser Tiger. United States must discard at least three battleships, the Utah, Florida, Arkansas or Wyoming. A. sensible compromise seems to Jinve been reached as regards cruiser

tonnage . difficulty. America’s eightinch gun against Britain’s fifteen is removed by a proposed system of '(-/transfer between eight-inch and sixT inch class. It may lie taken for grant- / ed that the compromise on building j , heavy cruiser class is now over between

United States and Britain. The same may be said indeed of every category of warship. The result will possibly be unpalatable to American economists as United States in order to obtain parity must build ten thousand ton cruisers in addition to eight already afloat or on the stocks. The “Times” editorially says: No one in Britain or United States regards war within the range of possibility, hut the navies approximate equal strength and will help to put war completely out of the question and give the nations a sense of comfort and security. Details will require careful examination and maybe some adjustment, but the statement seems to offer a basis acceptable to both countries.

THE NAVAL PROPOSAL

(Received this dav at 11 a.m.l

LONDON, Feb. 7

The American naval proposal may he summarised thus:—United States recedes from the original claim to have 21 10,000 ton cruisers against Britain’s fifteen, so the respective figures will eventually be America TS, Britain 15, giving the former an advantage of 30,000 tons. She recognises, how-' ever, Britain’s need for smaller cruisers of which she will have an excess of 40,000 tons, leaving the net cruisers of hich she will have excess of 50,000 tons, leaving a not cruiser margin in Britain’s favour of 12,000 tons. The scheme permits Britain no change of programme if she thinks it necessary by increasing largo cruisers to 18, flunking the proportionate deduction in the smaller craft.