NAVAL PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 December 1921, Page 5

NAVAL PROBLEM.

USE OF SUBMARINES. A NEW DIFFICULTY. POWERS OUTSIDE TREATY. By Telegraph.—Prt*s Ama. —Copyright. Reeeß ed Dec. 22, 8.20. pan. Washington, Dec. 21. Although Britain intends to put its rase for the abolition of submarines as forcefully as possible, it is semi* officially declared to-day they have no plans which will create* an impasse. If the sense of the committee is against her she will bow to the force of circumstances and proceed to business on the basis of a submarine being treated as part of naval armament. The action of all parties at the plenary session will depend on the decisions taken by the committee. Britain's most carefully prepared statement will most probably Be published, supplemented by a further plenary session. It is understood the French mean to ask for an allowance in submarine tonnage much in excess of their allotment of 32,G00 tons under Mr. C. E. Hughes’ plan, but not to the same total as Japan. France's cruiser allowance i» 157.000 tons. It is possible her capital ship limit will be slightly increased to allow her one squadron of six battleships of permitted tonnage. One of the mo-rt difficult points arising out of the naval agreement is the question of the building of ships or war by other nations which are not in the treaty. Mr. Hughes’ proposals include provisions that the Powers themselves shall not build such vessels, but as the great shipbuilding firms in Britain have yards in countries like Spain and Norway the effect of such prohibition in their case will simply be to divert their business to those countries. It will be very hard to settle matters unless all nations are brought into the convention of St. Germaine, which was signed in December, 1919, by the nations signatory to the Austrian Treaty. The United States signed but did not ratify this. It is suggested the United States should take steps to bring all the nations of the world into line on this question. This and other matters have not been approached before. NAVIES COMPARED. TONNAGE EXISTING TO-DAY. Received Dec. 22, 14.50 pan. Washington, Dec. 22. It is believed the French intend asking for 300XKM) tons in auxiliary craft, and 60,000 tons in submarines. The opinion is growing that the capital ships ratio will not necessarily be carried through in the classification of all craft. In this connection it is interesting to compare the latest available tonnage m these types for all five Powers. Britain and France have no submarines building, but have built 82.464 tons and 42,949 tons respectively. The Unit-

ed States has 82.015 built and building, Japan 31.452, and Italy 20250. In auxiliary surface combatant craft built and building the tonnage figures are:— Britain 610.810, United States 574.510. Japan 189,959, France 207,699, Italy 154,500. Much of the French ami Italian navies are worthless from a fighting viewpoint. It is a question whether the Confer ' ence will take them into consideration as necessary to scrap in order to bring them within the suggested ratio. If not. France will have aireaoy nearly all the tonnage she is reported to be asking for. Similarly regarding submarines the Conference may allow her to rest on the pre-ent figures. It may be said that these figures come from the latest American calculations. upon which Mr. Hughes founded his calculations. —Au«.-N.Z. Cable Assn. FEELING IN JAPAN. EFFICIENCY OF HER NAVY. Received Dec. 22, 11.30 p.m. New York. Dec. 21. According to the Philadelphia Ledger’s Tokio correspondent the leaders of th n House of Peers attacked the work of the delegation at Washington during the hearing of the Budget proposals. M. Takahashi declared Japan yielded on the naval ratios in return for America's concessions respecting fortifications. The Minister for Marine JM. Ide) said that while it appeared that the Washington delegation was compelled by circumstances to accept the *6O per cent, ratio the naval authorities. in laying plans to meet the situation. hoped increased efficiency in craft would off-set any loss in tonnage. — 4us.-XZ Cable Awn. SUBMARINES SUPPORTED. BY AMERICA AND ITALY. Received Dec. 22, 8.45 pm. Washington, Dec. 21. The American spokesman dropped an interesting hint to-day. when he told Pressmen that *Wp are almost through on a number of things.” He would not commit himself on the question or France’s demands for auxiliary tonnage, which he said were from the first regarded as of secondary importance to the capital ship ratio. It is understood Italy has signified her acceptance of the French ratio. The American experts have reported favorably on the retention of the submarine. ’ This is the Italian delegation s view also, but they would welcome any provision making the submarine an entirely defensive weapon. It is not clear yet whether Italy will stipulate equality with France in capital ship tonnage particularly or naval tonnage in general without special reference to the class The American State Department togay corrected an impression that the French put forward a specific plan regarding auxiliary tonnage. It is therefore unfair to assume at present that they are asking for a big tonnage in submarines in a spirit of trading, having given up their contention regarding capital ship tonnage. It is necessary to correct an earlier statement that the British submarine ease will be published after the committee meet. Publication will be reserved for the plenary session after the committee has dealt with the matter.—Special to Australian Press AmA.

suggested that the French acceptance of the capital ship ratio was not affected by their subsequent requisitions on the subject of submarine tonnage.

It is assumed the French will make the whole position clear at the meeting of the full committee on Thursday. A significant remark by the* American spokesman was that auxiliary tonnage was not of as great importance as the tonnage of capital ships. This may indicate a mollification of Mr. Hughes’ plan of proportionate reduction. This is not unlikely, seeing that Mr. Balfour, at the second plenary meeting, registered the opinion that nations like Britain, with long coast lines and a far-flung Empire, need to defend the trade routes and should have cruiser protection. He suggested that such vessels should be of light type and of no value in the fighting line, but invaluable for convoying, scouting. and the defence of merchant ships. Now M. Briand makes similar pleas.

It should be noticed that M. Briand’s letter specially mentions light cruisers and torpedo boats before submarines. This coupled with the reference to a “formal reserve.” may foreshadow a French retirement from the position demanding a full quota of submarines on an equality with Britain and the United States, as they are threatening to do, and may be a point whereon a compromise can be arranged, saving France’s face ami enabling M. Briand to convince the Chambers and the country that he has made as good a bargain as possible.

Another aspect is the raising of the submarine question in relation to coastline. On that ground Britain is entitled to many times more tonnage than France, when all the Imperial and coast trade routes ar? taken into consideration. Another point is the use of the defensive, which opens the way to the argument chat submarines should be restricted in size and range, so as to act entirely for coastal defence.

M. Sarrant last night declared that France demands a larger allowance of smaller craft than they are entitled to under the application of the strict capital ship proportion. The full committee meeting on Thursday will be devoted in part to detailed discussion of Britain’s attitude on the abolition of submarines. The whole matter will be threshed out behind closed doors, and then Britain will be given an opportunity to state her ease before the world at the plenary session next week. M. VTVIANI SATISFIED. Paris, Dec. 21. M. Vivian! has returned from Washington satisfied that Franc? has obtained a real diplomatic success there, the principal questions being settled to her satisfaction. The matter of tonnag? would undoubtedly be dealt with in London, but he thought the question of submarines, aviation and asphyxiating gas could only be solved with the afwsitance of the nations interested, including Germany.