NAVAL PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 December 1921, Page 5

NAVAL PROBLEM.

ATTITUDE OF FRANCE, NO AGREEMENT YET. ' SUBMARINE QUESTION, By Telegraph.— Amb.—Co pyrigtt. Washington. Dec. 22. All attention to-day is focussed on the meeting of the full committee on naval matters. Admiral Le Bon first presents the case for the French, urging the need for greatly increased tonnage of auxiliary craft and submarines. He will be asked to give adequate reason for his assertions and possibly to lay a complete statement before the committee, though this is improbable at this stage. If time permits Britain will present her case for the abolition of the submarine, Lord Lee basing his reasons on war experience and pointing out as one of the chief arguments that the submarine had not proved an effective weapon of defence except in the early period of the war. after which warships were able o combat the arm successfully, whereupon the Germans used it against defenceless merchantmen. Similar tactics might be expected of any nation driven desperation. It is impossible to control the use of the submarine by che ordinary rules of warfare. It is evident that the British are topeles- of carrying their point completely at this conference, though their action will have a powerful effect on public opinion and lay the foundations tor the reversal of the decision at some future conference, but the attitude may have the effect of inducing a curtailment of tonnage below Mr. Hughes’ original proposals. It is hinted that Mr. Hughes has already opened this aspect nf.the case with M. Briand directly after the receipt of M. Brland’s first letter. Italy has definitely ranged herself against Britain on the matter of abolition, though willing to take aa low a tonnage as possible, so long as it is equal to that of France, also to confine the functions of the submarine to purely defensive purposes. Italy argues that surface craft can act as brutally as submarines. It all depends on the character of the commander and the orders received.

Practically the whole of this morning's proceedings of - the full committee was taken up by Admiral Le Bon regarding France's case. It is apparent that the French delegation put it* own construction on H. Briand* letter to Mr. Hughes, maintaining that it means the withdrawal of the capital ship claims only if his views on the submarine question are met essentially. These views are that •France should not be limited in any direction whatever regiding the buil 1ing of auxiliary craft, including submarines. If. however, the Conference decides on such limitation, then France wants the right to build as much as any nation. M. Sarraut said he was sorry that he had not a better message to bring co the Conference, but admitted that he was still waiting further instructions from Paris. The matter was thereupon adjourned. The difficulty to understand the French tactics may be due to the personal feelings of M. who is known to be sore because Mr. Hughes had taken the matter over their heads direct to M. Briand, or it may mean they are anxious to have Britain defeated bv other nations in the matter of the abolition of submarines, with Franc* leading that defeat. They jmagin® they will be in a position ta dictate their own terms to the Confer ence. It is evident they still misunderstand the temper of the delegates, which is crystallising strongly against the French attitude. One effect of their retraction of M. Briand’* offer to withdraw the battleship demand will be to further lengthen the Conference, as they show no signs of any attempt to compromise.