The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1930. NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 34, 10 February 1930, Page 6

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1930. NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the tcrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The Americans have given a signal proof of their sincerity in the cause of world peace by making an offer which should greatly facilitate the decisions of the Naval Conference. The leader of the American delegation proposes to solve the differences of opinion in regard to cruisers by allotting to the United States 18 large cruisers as against Britain's 15, and by permitting Britain if she chooses to make up the balance by increasing the number of her small cruisers. The American concession is twofold—reduction of largo cruisers from 21 to 18, and admission of Britain's right to provide for her needs on a larger scale in the matter of small cruisers to protect her trade and patrol her Imperial highways. The net effect of the proposed change would bo to give the United States 30,000 tons more than Britain in large cruiserfe, and Britain 42,000 tons more than the United States in small cruisers, with leave to Britain to increase the number of her large cruisers if she will make a corresponding reduction in the number or tonnage of the smaller warships. Though there is not really very much in the concession offered, it is a definite indication that the American Government is anxious to go as far as possible to meet Britain's requirements, and it will be appreciated accordingly. But, unfortunately, American public opinion seems ill-prepared for a programme of concession or conciliation. The Chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate (Mr. Borah), and the Chairman of the Naval Committee of the House of Representatives (Mr. F. E. Britten) have all criticised Mr. Stimson's scheme adversely, either on the ground that it does not provide adequately for the needs of the American people, or that it represents a sudden change of policy which the circumstances do not justify. Mr. Borah, though evidently anxious not to prejudice the discussion in arty | wa y> thinks that "Britain ought to scrap more of her cruisers," and Mr. Britten, who has always been a "big navy" advocate, complains that "either the United States has been wrong for tho last few years or she is wrong now." It is natural that those who have been concerned in the American "big navy" propaganda should hesitate to endorse Mr. Stimson's proposals. But tho plea of "national ' needs" is not one that will carry any great weight in the councils of the Powers. Not long since the Naval Committee of the French Senate examined in great detail all the collateral circumstances bearing upon the claims for naval defence put forward by the Powers. They took into account, as "coefficients," area of territory, volume of sea-borne trade, length of coastline, and length of oversea communications, and the conclusions they reached should bo extremely satisfactory to Britain. The naval requirements of Britain were on this basis assessed at ten times those of Italy, | seven times those of Japan, three times tho->e of France, and more than twice the naval [ requirements of the United States. We cannot expect all the Powers to be satisfied with these estimates, but the "coefficients" taken into account by the French Senate provide a very strong argument against American claims and a correspondingly strong defence of the moderate programme put forward by Britain.