NAVAL TONNAGE PROBLEM.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19853, 14 February 1930, Page 9

NAVAL TONNAGE PROBLEM.

SOME PROGRESS MADE. ITALY'S PROPOSAL. (TJNITM PBBSS ASSOCIATION —BT SLICTBIC TBLEOaAPH—OOP*»IOJOtT.) LONDON, February 12. To-day's progress at the Naval Conference was real but severely technical. The outstanding fact is that the experts have at last reached the stage of a printed report on the compromise between the global and categorical methods of limitation, including as a schedule the table of categories favoured by Great Britain in a form acceptable to Prance and Italy, and available to all the other naval Powers willing to adopt it, if and when it becomes part of the League of Nations Disarmament Convention.

The value of the table is difficult to make plain until the blanks for total tonnage are filled in, but it seems to offer a compromise solution to a problem that hitherto has proved insoluble. An Italian Press Bureau foreshadows an early Italian statement proposing that the Great Powers scrap their capital ships, and also a number of heavy cruisers, expressing the opinion that if that were done there would be no need for the smaller Powers to have submarines.

Conference circles consider that there ia little hope of such a sweeping plan being adopted, though it is suggested that any reduction in big ship tonnage strengthens the case for whittling down submarines.

Thus Italy's plan is directly related to the Anglo-American scrapping discussions.

PURCHASE OF H.M.S. RODNEY. AMERICAN SENATOR'S SUGGESTION. (Received February 13th, 7 p.m.) WASHINGTON. February 12. The State Department refuses to answer criticisms of the American delegation in London while the Conference is in session, but the general feeling is expressed by Mr Cotton, Acting-Secretarv of State, who said: "This business of shooting at a piano player is indoor sport, which I deplore." He added that he had received no communication from Mr Stimson bearing upon the proposal that the United States should build a new super-dreadnought. He refused to oomment further. Senator Metcalf proposed that the United States should purchase H.M.o. Rodney, and charge the price against the British debt to America. LIMITATION OF SUBMARINES. COMMENTS IN THE PRESS. OFFICIAL WIRELESS. 1 KUGBY, February 12. Commenting on yesterday's discussion on submarines "The Times" says: —"There is unanswerable force in the argument that the only way to humanise the submarine is to abolish it, but even so, it will be something gained it definite rules are framed restricting its use. Even to an unscrupulous Power the existence of a definite fcode embodied in a formal treaty would be a deterrent. He would find a warning in the experience of Germany, remembering, as Mr Stimson reminded the Conference, that it was the threat of unrestricted submarine warfare which brought the United States into the war." ' The "Manchester Guardian" says:"If it were proposed to abolish the ocean-going submarine, not because it is a submarine, but because it is an offensive weapon, the suggestion ought not to offend' any Power which demands the submarine as a vital defensive weapon. The American delegation has put down the Biz© of the individual submarine for discussion. That is the first point; if it is a defensive weapon, let its size be reduced to suit its character. There is a second point: Are not these swollen submarine forces, ranging from 127 boats of the United States to 57 of Italy, to be heavily reduced!" ■ The "Daily Telegraph" thinks that something was gained by the declaration of the French, Italian, and Japanese delegates of their desire to enter into an international undertaking, such as has not hitherto been formally completed, to use submarines against merchant shipping in strict conformity with the rules observed in surface warfare.

But with the dismissal of the proposal of abolition goes the prospect of effecting invaluable economy, and of diminishing by much the danger that lies in all extensive developments of armaments, '

SOUTH AFRICAN DELEGATE'S SPEECH. MR TE WATER'S EXPLANATION. LONDON, February 12. Around the cryptic utterance yesterday of the South African delegate (Mr C. T. te Water) the French Press again has woven a story of Empire disunity. The "Echo de Paris" says: "Mr J. E. Fenton (Australia) and the Hon. T. M. Wilford (New Zealand), had they dared, would have ranged themselves behind their outspoken South African colleague." Mr te Water, however, was -merely suffering from an overdose of tact and caution. It has been ascertained that what he tried to convey was that h® was unable to see the logic in anyone s trying -to argue that submarines could be any .gooo. Mr te Water told the Sydney Sun" correspondent that several requests had been made to him for an explanation of his speech, which seemed to surprise them. "There is nothing surprising about it," he said. ''Having read the other speeches I decided to indicate what was in my mind, to the effect that I think we would get much further by objective and not subjective examination of the problem The younger nations are anxious for peace. Coming here with a fresh outlook, we see the position in a better perspective than those on the spot. I endeavoured to speak as the representative of one of the younger nations, frankly expressing a fervent desire to abolish w&rf&ro " It is learned that the first committee this afternoon will create a sunmarine committee with no other hope than that f of Approximating the Franco-American motions into a re ~ ■trictive convention.

CLASSIFICATION OF TONNAGE.

REPORT OF EXPERTS CONSIDERED. (bbitisb ofnoui> wmblbbb.) RUGBY, February 12. The first committee of the London Naval- Conference met at St. James's Palace this afternoon to consider the first report from the Committee of Experts set up on February 6th. A communique states: "This report contained proposals tor reconciling alternative methods for the limitation of naval armaments by a system of global tonnage or by classification by categories, as well as a table setting out a plan for the classification of tonnage between different classes 'of warships. After discussion of the report, the first committee decided to forward it with their own observations to the heads of the delegations. . , , . "The committee submitted two resolutions on the question of submarines referred to it for examination by the fourth plenary session to a committee of experts for examination and report. The Experts' Committee will meet again on Thursday morning to consider the best method of dealing with special vessels outside the principal categories and vessels not subject to limitation. The report of the experts referred to in the communique is a lengthy document. The framework of the category table which is incorporated in it leaves the figure of tonnaee allotments to each category to be filled in later, "l he categories are as follows: Capital snips, aircraft-carriers, cruisers armed with 8-inch aims, cruisers armed with 6-incn guns,, destroyers, and submarines. In rhe case of France and Italy there is no subdivision between cruisers, the lower cruiser classes, and destroyers, thereby giving complete freedom of transfer as between these classes. Blanks are left in the table for either of the countries to come into the scheme as they may see fit.