DAUDET CASE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19066, 30 July 1927, Page 15

DAUDET CASE.

(BT CABLB— FBXSS ASSOCIATION— COPYBIGHT.j (Stohbt - 'Sujt" Swmci.)

(Received July 30th, 12.20 a.m.) PARIS, July 30.

M. Daudet has published in "L'Action Francaise," an open letter to the Minister for Justice, stating that he is prepared to return to prison providing that his complaint regarding his son's death be investigated fairly, freely, and without obstacles.

cruisers and destroyers, 16 years; submarines, 14 years. It is further suggested that the following vessels over 6000 tons should be retained:-—British Empire—Four of the Hawkins type with 7.5 inch guns, York type, with 8 inches, two Emeralds, with 6 inches; "United States—Ten Omahas, with 6 inch guns; JapanFour Furntakas, with 8 inch guns. The general intention of the foregoing is to prqvide for the retention of fully efficient ships not within 10,000 tons, with 8 inch guns, or a contemplated class with a maximum of 6000 tons, with guns not exceeding 6 inch. The British Delegation, recognising that this would leave the United States no 8 inch gun cruisers, is prepared to agree to their construction, which would equalise the British Empire and United States in this class, all other cruisers to be divided into two classes, namely 10,000 tonners, in which the Empire and the United. States should each be limited to twelve and Japan to eight and the contemplated class aforementioned, the maximum displacement of flotilla leaders to be 1850 tons' and of destroyers 1500 tons, with a maximum armament of 5 inches.

It is proposed that of the total destroyer, class tonnage 100 per cent, might be used in vessels not exceeding 1500. tons, but not over 16 per cent, of the total for flotilla. leadera and. submarines to be divided into two classes, one between 1000 and 1800 tons, the other a maximum of 600 tons, the guns not to exceed 5 inch. The maximum submarine tonnage proposed is: The British Empire and the United States --90,000; Japan fiOiOQO, of which , class "A" is limited to two-tnirds of the total. Ex-. cept for the restrictions mentioned, the total tonnage is to be allocated as each Power thinks.best for incorporation in the treaty operating until 1936.

FRANCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

aUSTBAIUH AND K.Z. CABtl. i£SOCUXIOH.) (Received, July 30th, .1 a.m.)...

PARIS, July 29,

" Commenting on. Sir Austen Chamberkin's Geneva statement, the "Figaro" maintains that his argument for the limitation of armaments in accordance with national security, is equally applicable to land, forces which maam France has always defended, though her attitude has not always been understood.

PRESS COMMENT.

BRITISH COMPLAINTS CRITI-

CISED.

NEW YORK, July 28,

While there is at present much less comment in the American Press on the Geneva Conference than might have been expected, such leaders as have been published reflect different attitudes.

Probably the best example of the critical viewpoint is expressed in i the "Journal of Commerce," the oldest New York newspaper, which says: "The British are. said to be greatly pained by the tone of American Press reports, emanating. from Geneva, and discussing negotiations for naval disarmament. While denying that-any formal protest has been received from the British authorities, officials of; the United States Department of State express the opinion that the accounts in the American Press compare favourably with those published in the English newspapers. In this view of the case American readers of certain English papers will heartily concur. Could anything be more irritating to American sensibilities than the charge that our demands for naval parity were not made in good faith, but were presented for the sake of self-advertisement and notice to the world of the conviction of our equality. That is nevertheless the impression certain British licists desire to convey to their readers.- Such an interpretation of our cruiser building proposals is. calculated to arouse quite as much liard feeling as the allegations made by some American journalists reflecting upon the sincerity of the British desire to reduce naval expenses. It is very unfortunate that acrimony should have been injected into the accounts given to the public by both sides, but it seems only too evident that the debates themselves have not been con-i ducted nnder conditions calculated to produce a good impression upon the minds of correspondents." The New York "Times,' 1 on the other hand, expresses a spirit, of conciliation, declaring that the maintenance of Anglo-American friendship is more important than questions of cruiser tonnage, making it unnecessary, "to haggle over the ratios of tonnage, or other details of armaments." Other .journals content themselves with outlining the general situation without comment.;