NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 120, 18 February 1928, Page 9

NAVAL ARMAMENTS

WHERE BRITISH GOVERNMENT STANDS POSITION STATED BY MR. BRIDGEMAN AMERICA’S NEW PROPOSALS: SENATOR BRITTEN’S VIEWPOINT By Telegraph—Press Association.—Copyright. Rugby, February 16. Mr. IV. C. Bridgeman, First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in London'on the navy said it was untrue that the Government had not done their part towards general disarmament since the war. They had played their part to the full. Mr. Bridgeman continued: “We have to remember what our obligations are towards our country and Empire and to make quite certain we do not run the risk of any drastic reductions unless other countries in a different position to ourselves do something in return. We stand in a position totally different from that of every other country and we cannot admit we are in the same position as any other country for we cannot run the risk of losing that power which gives us free access to the seas.' He did not believe a weak British navy would contribute to the peace of the world. Dealing with the American desire to scrap submarines, Mr. Bridgeman said that was the British Government’s proposal at the Washington Conference, and they stood by that suggestion. “We should be glad if the submarine could be abolished, but other weaker and poorer countries regarded the submarine as their only means of defence, and we had to take into consideration that fact,” he concluded—British Official Wireless.

AMERICA’S APPROPRIATION AN ATTACK RESENTED MR. BRITTEN’S VIEWPOINT . Washington, February 16. Dr. Linley Gordon appeared before the House Naval Committee on behalf of the World Alliance for International Friendship, and attacked the large naval appropriations contemplated. Representative Britten: “From my viewpoint von might as well-be a member of the British Parliament. You could do Britain no greater service than by obstructing this naval programme.” Dr. Gordon stated that he was born in Australia and came to the United States in 1904. He became a citizen in 1925. He denied being pro-British. ■ * RESOLUTION TO OUTLAW WAR ENDORSED ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES Havana, February 16. On behalf of the United States, Mr.'

C. E. Hughes unqualifiedly endorsed a resolution to outlaw war among the American republics, introduced at the Pan-American Conference by Senor Gonzales Rea, the Mexican delegate. The resolution was referred to a subcommittee for preliminary consideration, upon which Mr. Hughes said: “I take this opportunity to express our entire accord with the proposal of Senor Rea.” ADMIRAL PLUNKETT AGAIN AMERICAN PROGRAMME NOT AGGRESSIVE (Rec. February 17, 10.30 p.m.) New York, February 16. Admiral Plunkett, who yesterday retired from active naval life, interviewed, said the late President Wilson’s proposal for freedom of the seas was the surest guarantee of international peace, but Britain never accepted it. Competition in foreign markets was bound to bring war unless America adequately prepared. Britain and other nations had violated the spirit of the Washington treaty by building cruisers in excess of the 5—5 —3 ratio. The American programme was not an aggressive one, and no nation should be alarmed by it. American pacificism was foreign-in-spired to lure the United States into a false sense of security.