SMALLER NAVIES

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1921, Page 5

SMALLER NAVIES

SOME PROGRESS MADE. FRANCE WITHDRAWS DEMAND BIG NAVY DROPPED, IN LINE WITH ITALY. (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Association.) Received Dee. 1. 9.40 p.m. Washington, Nov. 30. It has been definitely stated to-day that France will withdraw her demand for a navy as large as England, and will consent to rank alongside Italy. The original idea was for these two countries to have two-thirds of Japan's tonnage in Mr. C. E. Hughes’ plan, but there is a likelihood that this proposition will be reduced to one and a half, making the tonnage of capital ships and auxiliaries about 150,000.

This does not include submarine tonnage, consideration of which, as regards France and Italy, awaits agreement between the United States, Britain and Japan regarding their requirements. This plan would give France five capital ships, with the requisite supplementary auxiliary craft. If France and Italy agree, as seems highly probable, the naval agreement will be extended to include all five Powers.

Interesting manoeuvred arc going on here between the military and civilian sections of the Japanese delegation, which are reflected also at Tokio. The naval men will not give way on the question of ratio until the last ditch, while the civilian element of the delegation is ready to accept the inevitable and agree to Mr. Hughes’ plan. It is said that to-day the naval experts formally advanced a plea in committee for a 70 per cent, ratio. The feeling is that the last word is with the civilians, who will yield a point, hoping for recompense* on some of the other Far Eastern questions. The question of the naval ratio is still most prominent. It was elicited in American quarters to-day that while the experts have not reached an actual deadlock they differ on certain points, the assumption being that these points will be referred for decision to the “big three.” Mr. Balfour, Mr. Hugh?*, and Admiral Kato. It is explained that these differences are of two kinds One is regarding the figures of the formulae alone, in which some inaccuracies have been observed as to the basis of calculations, and the other difference was a? to what factors should be taken into consideration in determining the tonnage ratio. The American position was that if they were willing to scrap three hundred million dollars worth of ships under construction, other Powers should make sacrifices on the same lines. The United States view is that their nation would never stand for any proposition that they should scrap their uncompleted tonnage and other nations be al lowed to keep theirs. This evidently refers to the Japanese battleship Mutsu, which the American plan set down as incomplete, while Japan maintains she is actually commissioned.

Japanese circles declare the questions are not yet out of the hands of the naval experts, and refuse to discuss them. They admitted incidentally that quite conserable progress has been made towards the limitation of armament, and they saw no reason why naval matters should not be settled without reference to the tar East. There is a rumor in Washington tonight which must be accepted with reserve that Baron Kato called on Mr. Hughes and Mr. Balfour and presented them formally with the findings of the naval experts supporting Japan’s claim to a tonnage ratio of ten-ten-seven instead of ten-ten-six in favor of JapanNo confirmation could be gained of this statement in Japanese circles, which rather discouraged tjie rumor, saying such a course is unnecessary as Japan s position is known to the other delegations. It is suggested to-night that the Japanese are holding out on the tonnage ratio for the purpose of playing the position, wishing to withhold acquiescence until certain Far Eastern questions come to be considered.

THE NAVAL RATIO. SATISFACTORY PROGRESS MADE. (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Assn.) Received Dec. 1, 12.35 p.m. Washington, Nov. 30. British authoritative circles deciare that the discussion on the naval ratio is proceeding satisfactorily. Some announcement may be expected next week, though not before Wednesday. The course of procedure the committee indicated will be the settlement of the tonnage ratio, then the submarine question, then the naval holiday. Mr. Balfour, Sir Eric Geddes and Lord Lee go to New York on Saturday to attend important function*. Their absence will not interfere with the work of the committees. It is also intimated to-day that the British regard the progress of the Chinese deliberations optimistically, and everybody is satisfied, including the Chinese. THE SUBMARINE QUESTION. HOLLAND SUPPORTS FRANCE. Received Dec. 1, 10.10 a.m. Paris, Nov. 30. The Hague correspondent of the Petit Parisien states that Holland intends to support the French viewpoint regarding submarines, refusing the large limitation on the ground that they are necessary to maintain the neutrality of Holland and her colonies. STATEMENT BY LORD BEATTY. Received Dec. 1. 10.10 a.m. New York, Nov. 30. Before sailing in the Adriatic for England Lord Beatty expressed the belief that Japan would accept the five-five-three ratio suggested by Mr. C. E. Hughes. He declared : “If Japan wishes to add to her quota other nations must do the same naturally.”