THE TREATY SIGNED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 163, 23 April 1930, Page 5

THE TREATY SIGNED

THREE-POWER AGREEMENT NAVAL LIMITATION PLANS. MR STIMSON LEADS OFF. (United Press Association—Copyright.) (Received This Day, 9.30 a.m.) LONDON, April 22 The Three-Power Naval Pact was signed at' 12.40 p.m., Mr H. L. Stimson (United. States) append- m ing the first signature. Whatever the disappointment that France and Italv were not encompassed within the whole Treaty provisions it found no expression at the final plenary session at St. James's Palace. The speeches were full of optimism, everyone giving a word of benediction for the renewal of Franco-Italian negotiations, of which Mr MacDonald afterwards gave a hint. Each delegation signed the Treaty en bloc in the vellum book. Mr Stimson used his own gold pen, and the others one which was later presented to Mr MacDonald. Mr T. M. Wilford , (New Zealand), however, chose a plain businesslike black penholder lying on the table. The full text of the Treaty was circulated immediately after the signingTREATY PROVISIONS. LIMITATION OF TONNAGES. A SAFEGUARDING CLAUSE. (United Press Association—Copyright.; (Received This Day, 11.15 a.m.) L,Osu\jS, April 22. The full text ot the in aval Treaty, signed at St. James's Palace to-day u.\ tiie plenipotentiaries of ureat Uritain and the iUmpire, tlie United states, Italy, i*ranee and Japan, consists oi live parts and 215 articles. Of tnese, eight articles comprise part 3 of the 'lreaty, winch is a three-Power pact, and which is not signed l>y fiance anu Italy. 'lue parties agree not to exercise their rights to lay down capital ships replacement tonnage during the years IiKJI to liiaG inclusive, as provided by tne Washington lreaty. Tins provision is without prejudice to the disposition relating to tne replacement or ships * accidentally lost, nor does it prejudice the right of trance and Italy to buiiu the replacement tonnage to which they were entitled under tne Washington Treaty to lay down in and iitei/.

the United Estates, tinted kingdom and Japan shall dispose or the ronowmg capital snips: United States —Florida, Utah, Arkansas or Wyoming. United Kingdom Benbow, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Emperor of India and tiger. japan—Hiyei. Or. the ships to be disposed of, the Arkansas or .Wyoming, Iron Duke, and Hiyei may be retained for training purposes, but all others must be rendered unfit for warlike services within 18 months and linally scrapped within 30 months of the coming into lorce of the lreaty. In the articles devoted to aircraftcarriers, it is laid down that no capital ships in existence on April 1, 19b0, shall be fitted with landing platforms or decks, and that no aircraft-carrier of 10,00 U tons or less displacement mounting a gun above '6.1 inch shall be acquired ox constructed . Part 4 of the Treaty sets out certain rules which are accepted as those established by international law. these, after ratification, will be communicated by the British government to the signatories of the Treaty, who will be invited to accede to them. These rules are: i

First, in their action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform, to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subject. Secondly, in particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed the, passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place or safetv. For this purpose a ship s boats" are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the ( passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions by the proximity of land or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board. The Treaty remains in force until December 31*. 1936, except that there is no time limit for Part 4, and that the aircraft-carrier provisions remain in force for the same period as the Washington Treaty. Details regarding the limitation of naval combatant vessels of the United States, the British Commonwealth and Janan 'are set out in Part 3. Cruisers are divided into two categories—those carrying guns above o.i inch and those carrying guns not above tonnage in cruiser, destroyer and submarine categories, which is not to be exceeded on December 81, 193 G, is given as follows: Tonnage. SS'.T ::: S» Cruisers (guns G.lin and less)United States ... 143,.>0Q British Empire ... j 192 200 Japan ... ••• lu > IoU Destroyers- . „ nnn British Empire ... 100.000 United States ... 150,000 Japan 105,000 Submarines— British Empire ... 52./00 United States ... «2./00 Japan 52 .' OO The total tonnage embraced by these tables are: Tons. British Commonwealth 1541,700 Japan ... ••• 307,050 The maximum number of cruisers

with guns of more than 6.1 inch calibre is fixed for the three signatories as follows: United States ... .18 British Commonwealth 15 Japan ... - 1^ Vessels which cause the total tonnage in any category to exceed the figures given in the table are to he disposed of gradually during the period ending December 31, 1936, and details of percentages of tonnage transferable in destroyer and submarine categories, etc., are incorporated. A special safeguarding clause incorporated in Part 3 reads as follows: "If, during the term of the present Treaty the requirements of national security of any party in respect of vessels of war limited by Part 3 are, in the opinion of that party, materially affected by new construction of any Power other than those which have joined in "Part 3, that party will notily the other parties to Part 3as to the increase required to be made in its own tonnages, specifying particularly the proposed increases and the reasons therefor, and shall lie entitled to make such increase Thereupon other parties to Part 3 shall be entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categories specified, and the said other parties shall promptly advise with each other, through diplomatic channels, as to the situation thus presented." Rules for replacing, disposing, scrapping or converting vessels of war are contained in annexes to the Treaty. Part 5 providies for a further Conference, unless otherwise agreed, in 1935 to frame a new Treaty to replace and carry (on the purposes of the present agreement.—British Official Wireless.

AN-UNDERSTANDING. ACHIEVEMENTS OF CONFERENCE SPEECH BY MR /.MACDONALD. • United Press Association—Copyright.) LONDON, April 22. At the opening of the final plenary session of the Naval Conference, Mr Ramsay MacDonald explained that the original draft of the treaty contained Part 2 dealing with the -method relating to the computing of tonnages as between the statements submitted some time ago by France and Britain at Geneva, at which an agreement had not been possible, but which had been reached at this conference. It was felt on further consideration that the best way to.deal with that part of the draft treaty would be for him, as chairman, to transmit it to the secretariat of the League of Nations and ask him to draw the special attention of the Preparatory Commission to it, as the finding of this Conference It would be accompanied by an explanatory letter. The Conference agreed on the* suggestion. , Mr MacDonald said that the Washington Treatv provided for a. further conference within an actenmum or its .signature, or 1931. As a matter of fact this Conference anticipated the 1931 Conference, which therefore would not be held. The work of this Conference would not be carried on and the next Conference would be held in 19.j0, unless events in the meantime take place of such a happy character as not to require it. This was agreed to. • ■Mr MacDonald said that the heads of the delegations had decided that the most convenient titles would be the London Naval Conference and the London Naval Treaty of 1930. This was approved. The Value of Reduction. In his final address as chairman, Mr MacDonald said: "We have gone.as far as we can at present. \\ e met to gather the points of the agreement and embody them in a treaty. Compared with the Washington and Geneva, treaties we have u rogressed far. Compared with our desires, we are stu short This is but another stage, and the work will have to be continued, tackling the problems which baffled us On one thing we. can congratulate ourselves Everyone in the Conference knows how, again and again, a mistaken word or awkward handling could have created a troubled situation which would not have been, speedily allayed, ye we part in a spirit of active goodwill determined to make tins a beginning and use every means offering Fo make the Five-Power Treatv a reality ' The Conference has done a gieat work Wd have secured a threePower agreement. The insoluble differences of opinion hitherto accompanying attempts to settle relative naval strengths have disappeared Air MacDonald, after .summarising the achievements of the Conference, went on to say: "We have gone much ftrtlier than has yet been possible. •The public probably does not appreciate 'how much has beer, effected Tne permanent reduction of building programmes is almost as valuable as scrapping. We found navies at a point of dangerous expansion, nations beinc at a fatal moment. ' By a process of mental delusion they were again reducing anti-war security by mcreasin" armaments. While, that w.H-ot-the-wisp is followed, conferences must fail or- only partially succeed We must strengthen the new neutrality foi peace and apply it to further reductions. Such progress should be possible in 1936, to which the treaty has been extended. Great Britain has achieved a security pact with America and Japan, but until the European situation, which is harder to settle was resolved by agreement, every bond of limited scope must have a protection of safeguarding clause. Such a clause was not inserted as an easy way to get round the treaty. It would only be used after every effort to avoid, it. Only when it was apparent that Great Britain's naval"position would be so affected by ships built or contemplated by other Powers would recourse be had to the protected clause."

An Appeal to Europe. Mr MacDonald, speaking with the utmost earnestness, went on to say: Britain will strive with might and main to prevent this arising. She has every hope that an understanding will result from the conversations after the adjournment of the Conference, making any use of the protection clause unnecessary, i appeal to the public, opinion of' Europe to range itself behind those conducting these negotiations. No one nation can take its way toward disarmament, which is only possible by international agreement. After paying a tribute to the friendship and mutual understanding engendered by the Conference, Mr MacDonald thanked the delegates and experts for their forbearance and helpfulness, and said that the Americans had been enthusiastic colleagues, as

also had the Japanese, though nevertheless stoutlv defending their national needs. The French, despite political distractions, had given unstinted assistance. Despite the fact that there was not a complete agreement, they had demonstrated that they were fully enlisted in the cause of peace and would continue the negotiations directed toward success. Signor G ranch's illness precluded the presence of the Italians. Despite their difficult part, they had helped in every other way than' in discussing actual figures. They would depart determined to seek the means of- producing a general agreement toward European disarmament. Mr MacDonald added that the Dominions, while jealously guarding their independent position, showed a sleepless desire to maintain the concert which was essential to an agreement. THE ATTITUDE OF FRANCE. SECURITY OF ALL NATIONS. (Received This Day, 11.25 a.m.) LONDON, April 22. M. Briand said that France's whole internal policy had been a ceaseless effort toward organisation of world peace. France had never asked for, nor sought, guarantees for herself alone, but always had in mind security of all nations which might bo called on to lend each other mutual assistance in order {to prevent war or strive against it. France always thought that such mutual guarantees would bring about simultaneous reduction of armaments, different from the former alliances of groups—alliances which actually led to an increase of armaments. France had shown a keen desire to find a means of effective improvement of international security in all the possibilities of a wide agreement for a general reduction in naval armaments. Quite naturally, the views of countries represented at the Conference showed that they were not equally ready to pursue such a wide debate" to its logical conclusion. In conclusion, M. Briand said that France specially congratulates the ThreePower signatories on their achievement, but regretted that the agreement was not more general. ''France will do her'utmost to overcome this relative impasse," said M. Briand. Mr Wakatsuki (Japan) warmly praised the statesmanship, kindliness and forbearance of Mr MacDonald, and congratulated him. on the success of the Conference. Japan always followed a policy of minimum naval strength for defensive purposes, also fulfilling her obligations for the maintenance of pea.ee. Mr T. M. Wilfoid (New Zealand) regretted that the Conference had not found a formula for a Five-Power Treaty. , Though the Three-Power Treaty fell short of his hopes, it would restrain competitive building. New Zealand regarded the safeguarding clause as all-important. It should halt the naval construction race.

Signor lanni regretted Signor Grandi's inability to bo present, and voiced the satisfaction the Italian delegation had with the agreement reached. He pleasantly anticipated that the resumption of the Franco-Italian negotiations would result in an agreement completing the Three-Power Pact. Mr J. E. Fenton (Australia), Sir Atul Chatterjee (India), Mr To Water (South Africa)., and Mr Phillip Perry (the.latter in the absence of Mr Ralston, chief of the Canadian delegation) expressed pleasure at the result of the Conference. The Conference then adjourned. FOUNDATIONS OF PEACE. "A GREAT LANDMARK." (Received This Day, 12.5 p.m.) LONDON, April 22. The Prime Minister (Mr J. Ramsay MacDonald) to-night broadcasted a speech throughout Britain: "We have done something to improve prospects of peace on earth," said Mr MacDonald. "Now it is all over, 1 can say with the firmest conviction that if what we have done is immediately used to prepare the public mind to do more, the Conference will prove a great landmark, showing how the nations are approaching an abiding peace." Mr MacDonald concluded: "T behove we have done work that will follow us and that the Conference has laid foundation stones on which others will build. We can suspend our labours and bid each other goodbye, carrying awav not only a signed treaty, butmost precious of all—factors of international peace, goodwill and mutual friendlv understanding and respect."

OPINIONS ON PACT. SAVING TO THE TAXPAYER. EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT. (Received This Day. 11. Jo a.m.) LONDON, April 22. The "Daily Express" says that reductions in battleships means that -1000 fewer officers and men will lie wanted for the active fleet in the next two years. The result of the Naval Treaty will mean savings to the taxpayer totalling £100,000,000 in building costs and ,CGG,OOO,OOO, spread over a decade, in maintenance. On the contrary, says the "Express," there will lie less employment in the dockyards and shipbuilding yards. The reductions in personnel will fall most heavily on officers now aged 3;"), 4000 or 5000 of whom will have n<f chance of promotion. The men will be reduced by restricted entries.

SUCCESS AND FAILURE. LONDON PRESS OPINIONS. (Received This Day. 11.45 a.m.) LONDON, April 22. The "Daily Herald" (Labour), commenting on the Naval Conference, says it has achieved limitation, not reduction, of armaments. Satisfaction at its limited success must bo chastened by the consciousness of its wider failure, because the task to which the Powers pledged themselves at Versailles has not yet begun. The Conference and the treaty must not be regarded as the goal, but as the starting point. ... ~ The "Daily Express," m an editorial,

states that the Conference was a success compared with previous failures, and a failure compared with some of the hopes it inspired. That must he the final judgment on "an ambitious, memorable venture, but to the principal actor, Mr MacDonald, there can be nothing but laurels."

BETTER THAN EXPECTED. FRENCH PRESS VIEW OF RESULT ''Received This Day, 1.5 p.m.) PA HIS, April 22. The newspaper, "he Temps," says that Italy's demand for parity made general agreement impossible, but the Conference ended better than was expected a few weeks ago. France retains liberty of action and the right to watch over her own defences The "Journal dos • Dcbats" says: "Without Italy's demands, the agreement would have been more comprehensive, but these were not of a nature to cause a complete breakdown. The differences can be settled elsewhere than in London. The mam thingis not to allow them to cause estrangement in Franco-Italian relations. AMERICA'S CONGRATULATIONS. CONFIDENCE AND GOODWILL. LONDON, April 22. Mr H. L. Stimson (United States) said: "I wish to congratulate you on the successful conclusion of the Naval Conference and to thank you for the sterling qualities of your leadership, which contributed so effectively thereto I cannot refrain from a personal word to tell you how deeply I. appreciate your unwearying patience skill, and tact with which you have led us through the difficult weeks. We are also grateful for the hospitality of your Government, which does not 'mean a perfunctory, but an expression of genuine desire to make us feel at home. . , .. ~ "We sign this Treaty with the realisation that it fixes our naval relationship with the British Commonwealth of Nations on a fair and lasting basis, and that is equally advantageous to us all. It also establishes our naval relationship with our good neighbour across the Pacific, and ensures con timious growth of friendship with a nation to which we have come to look for stability and progress with tne Far East. We are happy to have participated with France and Italy in the solution of some of the important general problems,- and we arc glad to know as we separate that it is their purpose to continue the discussions in the hope of soon completing a Five-Power agreement of naval restriction. "The fundamental purpose with which the American delegation came to London was to help in the promotion of good relationship between the nations. It. is our belief that the limitation of armaments by mutual agreement is one of the most effective methods of increasing each nation's confidence in the other's pacific intentions, as we believe that limitation increases security. We look forward to periodically recurring conferences, and we are confident that by that way wo shall obtain ever-increasing security with ever-decreasing armament. "Wo believe that naval limitation is one of the most accurate measures of the world's belief in the possibility of settling all international matters by pacific and rational means. Our experience here has strengthened those beliefs, increased our hope that civilisation will be able to form the habit of settling peaceably questions and controversies, and that limitation will in future register this increasing confidence and goodwill. We- have found great encouragement in the sincerity of spirit and fair dealing with which we have been met by the other delegations, from whom wo have received t!ie utmost consideration of our own problems. "In departing, we pledge for the future, as we did upon our arrival, our utmost co-operation toward the great ends that brought us here," AMERICA AND RATIFICATION. (Received This Day, 9.30 a.m.) LONDON. April 22. President Hoover announced that the Naval Agreement would be sent to the Senate for ratification immediately it arrived at Washington.