USE OF SUBMARINES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19852, 13 February 1930, Page 11

USE OF SUBMARINES.

FRENCH OPPOSE ABOLITION.

(BBITISH OITICUL WIRELESS.* LONDON, February 11. Nothing that has not already been foreshadowed occurred at the plenary session of the Naval Conference on the thorny subject of submarines. The Powers ranged themselves as expected, Great Britain and America wholeheartedly for their abilition, and France and Japan for their retention for defence under strict conformity to international law. Italy is more disposed toward abolition than retention, but as Signor Grandi said, she is maintaining an open mnd. The Dominion representatives very briefly ranged themselves on the Anglo-American side. The framing of the United States motion rather suggests that the eventual outcome will be strict reduction of the size and numbers, and the stricter outlawing of "frightfulness." The present submarine strengths of four Powers represented at the conference are:—

Built. Building. Total. United States 121 5 127, France .. 53 47 99 Japan 04 7 71 British Empire 53 1 (3 projected) 07

What Britain Proposed. The Prime Minister, Mr Ramsay MaeDonald, presided at this morning's sitting, and the British ease for the total abolition of underwater craft was put by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr A. V. Alexander).

He said it was in no way a surprise proposal. It had been consistently urged by successive British Governments, and was specially pressed at the Washington Conference less than three years after the armistice of 1918, when tho representatives of the Powers had fresh in their minds the bitter experiences of the first war in which submarines had been extensively used. The world in general had not obliterated the horror which people had experienced as tha results of submarine action, which, to quote Lord Balfour, were inconsistent with the laws of war, and the dictates of humanity. He did not think it unreasonable to ask that steps be taken to prevent the recurrence of such events before a generation which had experience of them passed out, and a new generation without such direct knowledge was in control. Failing an agreement on abolition Great Britain would endeavour to confine the submarine to defence by limiting it 6trictly both in size and numbers, and would accept the lowest possible limits. She would also propose that if submarines were retained the most definite conditions should be laid down and agreed upon with a view to preventing them from being used a3 commerce-destroyers in violation of international law and practice.

To that end Great Britain would seek to revive the agreement signed at Washington in 1922, but which was not fully ratified by the signatory Powers, to regulate the attacking of merchant ships by submarines in accordance with the rules and practice --set out in that treaty. Mr H. L. Stimson (United States) said that the United States was not seeking to carry the proposal to abolish submarines from emotional grounds, but looked upon it as a practical, commonsense measure in line with the reduction of armaments which the peoples of the world were demanding.

The French Viewpoint. M. Leygues (France) considered that the submarine warship, like others, was a defensive weapon, which all naval Powers could not abolish. Its use could and should be Tegulated like others. This viewpoint would be kept in mind by France when stating her standpoints and when drawing up her proposals, which would be determined by the general structure of her Empire. The history of recent war proved that the submarine was not used only against merchant ships, added M. Leygues. He quoted naval losses due to submarines in war time as follows: France, 82,000 tons; Britain, 191,000 tons; Italy, 20,000 tons; total Allied tonnage, 312,000 tons. Submarines had not only destroyed warships, but had immobilised them.

Regarding the reproach that the submarine was unchivalrous, he said that the same applied to all new weapons as when the firearm replaced the sword, and when the torpedo replaced the gun. France had to protect an empire of 4,500,000 square miles, and lines of communications to Africa, in which connexion she relied on the submarine as a scout, for which duty it was practically matchless. For these reasons, and the comparative weakness of h«r surface craft, the submarine was indispensable from France's viewpoint, which had not altered since the Washington Conference, when she accepted an inferior ratio of capital ships.

It should be borne in mind that the League of Nations had sanctioned submarines to its members, continued M. Leygues. Any vessel might be used criminally in war. He asserted that British submarines had complied with international law. The submarine was not necessarily barbarous. France believed that unrestricted submarine war against trade should be outlawed, and accepted the principles of the Root Resolutions at Washington. It should be possible to permit them without violating international law. M. Leygues emphasised that America, Italy, and Japan did not seek the abolition of submarines at Washington. The attitude of the trio was then very near the present French viewpoint. He concluded that France could not accept abolition, though she was ready to concur in their international regulation. He proposed an appointment committer to prepare an agreement open to the signature of all Powers, forbidding submarines to act against merchantmen otherwise than in strict conformity with rules, present and future, observable by surface warships.

Other Opinions. Signor Grandi said that Italy was determined to uphold the cause of disarmament, but she must examine the abolition of submarines, not as a separate problem, but as one within the Conference's framework. He appreciated the viewpoint that they were tlw weapons of smaller Powers against the capital ships of larger Powers. He was glad to see that the abolition of the latter was being discussed. He aslwl, was not a solution possible along the linep of abolition of both? Jta,ly was ready to renew the undertaking to restrict the use of submarines and merchantmen. Admiral Takarabe (.Japan), in expressing Japan's objection to the abolition of submarines, mentioned that aircraft could offer a greater menace to defenceless lives. Japan needed submarines to defend her island kingdom. She was eager to adopt th<3 Root formula, bringing them to strict circumspection of the law. He supported the French motion. Colonel J. E. Fenton (Australia) briefly agreed with the observations made by Mr Alexander, and th« 3 Hon. T M. Wilford (New Zealand) similarly spoke, adding that New Zealand had arrived at the conclusion for a different reason, which was that unless a submarine was offensive, it could not be defensive. Mr te Water (South Africa) regretted that he could not whole-heartedly agree

to the reasoning of some delegates, but South Africa, if abolition was unattainable, favoured limitation. At Mr Mac Donald's suggestion, the Conference remitted to the first committee the French motion and also an American motion urging the creation of a committee to report, first, on the abolition of submarines, second, the regulation of their jxse under the laws governing the use of surface vessels, and, third, the regulation of units and size of submarines.

DEFINITE STAGE APPROACHING.

PROCEDURE WORKING OUT TO PLAN. LONDON. February 11. Mr Mac Donald, when interviewed by Pressmen after the plenary session, said that the Naval Conference was getting deeper down, and would shortly reach the stage of actual figures and agreements. The whole procedure was working out according to plan. The subjects were not being discussed haphazardly, but according to a carefully thought out scheme.

Up till now, he said, all suggested figures and propositions were purely tentative. It was now approaching the time to which he had been steadily working when there would 4 be firm offers. They could not claim yet that they had reached any specific agreements. These would come with a rush at the end. The vital fact was that the representatives of five Powers, with widely different natural needs, had been_ together for three weeks. Their relations to-day were even more harmonious than when they started.

SUPER-DREADNOUGHT PROPOSAL.

OPPOSITION IN AMERICA

WASHINGTON. February 11

Mr F. A. Britten, chairman of the House Naval Committee, predicted today that the super-Dreadnought proposed by the United States at the Naval Conference would never be built, but would be help up as a sop to American naval enthusiasts.

If the American delegation was going to play into tlie hands of Britain, he said, it would be as well for them to pack up their trunks and como home. He would oppose the construction of eleven six-inch gun cruisers as not being adapted to American needs. These were just what England wanted, and needed best. Expert n.dvi_ce in the United States Navy had indicated that America's strength would depend on a uniform type of ship. Senator Borah, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also expressed opposition to the surserDreadnought proposal.

THAT EXTRA BATTLESHIP.

MORE COMMENT FROM AMERICA (Received February 13tli, 12.58 a.m.) WASHINGTON, February 12. Asking "Oh! Parity: What crimes are to be committed in thy name?" Senator Borah delivered his first public utterance on th e London parley, attacking the American proposal to build another American battleship. "If parity can be had by a reduction, I am for parity; if it can be had only by spending millions on. the kind of ships which never in all human probability will be used, then I feel no interest in parity. I see no justification in our building or claiming the right to build- one battleship. What possible justification can there be for expending large sums of money in building more battleships —a ship which some of the brightest minds in the naval » world declared to be obsolete? Can any reasonable person contemplate the burden which all the people are now carying, due to armaments? Realise the weight now resting upon the taxpayers of every civilised country in the world, and then contemplate the useless waste of money in building a battleship in the name of parity.'' Representative Britten called the American proposals a patchwork, and said that he was unable to understand how Mr Stimson could put them forward, irrespective of preserving the balance in the American fleet. "Scrap the Rodney, that will settle the proposition," he said.

QUESTIONS IN THE COMMONS

LONDON. February 11

In the House of Commons, Lieu tenant-Colonel C. K. Howard-Bury (Con.) asked: Did the Government consult the Commonwealth before the announcement of the latest reduction of cruisers and destroyers? Mr Mac Donald: No, But the Commonwealth was kept fully apprised, ot the conditions upon which the decision was based. Lieutenant-Colonel Howard-Bury: Are you aware that there is considerable anxiety in Australia regarding the Singapore Base and the cutting down of cruisers and destroyers? Mr Mac Donald: I am aware of the exact opposite.

That sulphuric acid may have the effect of a manure, and that "nut" grass is extraordinarily hard to eradicate, were two facts learnt simultaneously by the foreman of the One Tree Hill Road Board, Auckland, the other day, states an exchange. "Nut" grass has become a nuisance in one part of the district. It forces its way through the tarred pavements, and spoils the surface of the paths. Every means of killing the grass was tried without result, and finally two big bucketfuls of strong sulphuric acid were poured on to the patch. Away went the foreman satisfied, but on returning a few daya later he found the growth greener than ever. I

MEMORIES—OR MEMORIES AND PICTURES 1 Make certain that you place the happy days of this summer on record. Buy a Voightlander or Kodak Camera at Wallace 6. No need for an outlay of money. Just pay a few shillings weekly. Wallace and Co., Photographic Dealers, High 6treet. —3 By special arrangement, Reuter's world service, in addition to other special sources of information, is used in tho compilation of the overseas intelligence published in this issue, and ail rights therein in Australia and New Zealand era reserved. Such of the news on this page as is so headed hag appeared in "The Times," and is cabled to Australia and New Zealand by special permission It should be understood that the opinions ar« not those of "The Times'' unless expressly stated to ba so.