PROBLEMS OF SAFETY

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 974, 17 May 1930, Page 9

PROBLEMS OF SAFETY

TREATY DISPLEASES U.S.A. NAVY HEADS NO PARITY WITH BRITAIN Reed. 9.5 a.m. WASHINGTON, Fri. Rear-Admiral Bristol. Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Navy General Board, asserted that the opposition to the London Naval Treaty was the division of the United States cruisers into six eight-inch gun types. Before the Senate Committee RearAdmiral Bristol said the board unani-, mously favoured building 1.000-ton eight-inch gun cruisers exclusively. He agreed with the board and believed his opinion represented the consensus of naval opinion when he said the Treaty established “bad precedents.”

Questioned as to the wisdom of the Treaty at this time, he added: "It does not give the United States parity.” American Interests required the maintainance of the five-three ratio with Japan. “In any difficulties with Japan,” he added, the United States would have to carry the campaign into Japan, because the best defence is offence.” Under questioning Rear-Admiral Bristol admitted Japan would no, bring war to the United States. The United States would be safe, but would lose the war. U.S.A. HANDICAPPED Admiral Hilary Jones bitterly condemned the treaty. He criticised the limitation of eight-inch cruisers ami the division into six-inch and eightinch vessels of this type. The admiral argued that the treaty would not only give Britain an advantage over the United States, but Japan's ratio of 70 per cent, actually meant 100 per cent, under present conditions and would handicap the United States in the event of a war in the Pacific. The witness criticised the safeguarding clause of the treaty, intimating that circumstances might cause Britain to take advantage •»* it and build beyond the treaty limits. Admiral W. V. Pratt in his evidence defended the division of cruisers and said the treaty gave satisfaction. It is reported that Mr. G. C. Dawes, U.S.A. Ambassador in London, has been summoned to return to confer with President Hoover regarding the naval agreement.

SEA POWER SACRIFICED

CRITICISM IN BRITAIN FEAR OF AMERICA’S FLEET LONDON, Thursday. Mr. Winston Churchll, who spoke after Mr. MacDonald in the debate in the House of Commons, said the London Naval Treaty differed fundamentally from the Washington Treaty. The London Treaty was not a parity treaty, but a formal acceptance of definitely inferior sea power. That at Washington confined itself to the battle sphere, and left Britain tree to make her own arrangements tor the protection of commerce and food supplies by nefcs of cruisers and other craft. After reviewing the naval strengths of Britain and America in 1936, Mr. Churchill said undoubtedly the American Fleet would be superior to the British. Britain was no longer to have a navy even for battle purposes, to say nothing of trade protection, equal to the other leading navies. This treaty meant that the British Empire was solemnly accepting a permanently secondary position in sea power. The Government had thus gone heyqnd what was wise and right. OPPOSITION FREE The Opposition had been powerless to avert such a position. The}- could not accept the slightest responsibility for the present position, nor invest the act of the Government with a national sanction.

"We hold ourselves free to review the whole situation.” (Opposition cheers.)

Mr. Churchill added that Japan had increased her ratio, and came within 30 per cent, of the strength of the British Empire, which was scattered all over the surface of the globe. France and Italy had gone off. perhaps to embark in serious naval rivalry. America was making the greatest naval expansion ever seen. The only Power which was actually disarming was the one which had already done the most disarming.

Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George both strongly objected to the fact that Mr. Churchill, in the course of his speech, quoted a telegram sent to the late Earl of Balfour at the Washington Conference, which they claimed to be a secret document.

RATIFICATION OPPOSED

LONDON, Thursday. Eighty-two Conservative members of the House of Commons, headed by Rear-Admiral T. P. Beamish, member for East Sussex, have tabled a motion to the effect that Part Three of the London Naval Treaty, dealing with cruisers, destroyers and submarines, is contrary to the interests of the British Empire and ought not to be ratified.