NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 264, 3 August 1929, Page 11

NAVAL ARMAMENTS

MEANS OF REACHING PARITY SENATOR BORAH’S SUGGESTION BRITAIN TO SINK SOME SHIPS Senator Borah suggests that m Britain has more modern cruisers than the United States, she should sink some of them, and thus come to parity. This, be says, will not only save the taxpayers, but reduce the incentive to war. (United Press Association— By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Australian Press Association. (Red. August 2, 8.45 p.m.) Washington, August L Senator Borah (Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate) issued a statement to-day after having presumably discussed naval questions with President Hoover yesterday. In part, he said: ‘Parity coupled with reduction means much. It means a great deah But parity coupled merely with limitations means very little, if I understand the reports of our Navy Department correctly, Britain now has fifty-nine modern cruisers and eight more are being built, constituting in tonnage 375,300 tons, whereas we now have eighteen modern cruisers built or building. If Britain will follow our example at the Washington Conference and sink some of her ships, and thus come to parity, it will not only save the taxpayers, but reduce the incentive to war. But if we have to build up to parity, it vastly increases the burden of the taxpayers and augments an incentive to war. What we really desire is a reduction of armaments. That is the primary thing for which we are contending, and if parity were used to justify building a huge armament it would become a menace instead of a security. I notice from London dispatches that Britain will not reduce her cruisers. That Is very discouraging news.” LIFE OF BATTLESHIPS QUESTION OF EXTENSION TO BE CONSIDERED AT NEXT CONFERENCE Australian Press Association. Washington, August 1. It is reliably reported that the inspection of battleship power in the next naval reduction conference will involve proposals for extending the life of battleships and decreasing their size, but it is unlikely that a total abolition of battleships will be discussed. Information shows that no official proposal has ever been made here for a complete elimination of this type of craft, despite the tremendous building expenses faced by the United States and other countries at the beginning of 1931 under the replacement of ships based on the 1922 Washington Treaty. American officials hold that the twentyyear period set by the 1922 Treaty as the life of a battleship is too short. It is pointed out that Britain has three battleships of the Hood type much larger than America’s largest, and, if a reduction is carried on along the lines proposed by the British after the 1927 Tripartite Conference, Britain would have ships much more powerful than any possessed by or possible to the United States. BRITAIN’S SUSPENSION OF BUILDING MR. BALDWIN DECLARES IT RASH LABOUR’S TENDENCY TO JUMP TOO QUICKLY (Rec. August 2, 7 p.m.) London, August 2. Mr. Baldwin, speaking at Malvern, said there could be no complaint at the Government holding up a fresh naval programme if there was a real chance of agreement with the other Powers, but he thought it unnecessary and rash to Interfere with the existing programme. There was a tendecny on the part of the new party to try to jump too quickly, but more haste less speed was truer in international politlcse than in any other walk of life. LULL IN NEGOTIATIONS IN LONDON (Rec. August 2, 7 p.m.) London, August 2. With Mr. MacDonald’s departure for Lossiemouth and General Dawes’s pending Irish tour, a brief lull is expected in the Anglo-American naval negotiations.