NAVAL LIMITATION

Evening Star, Issue 19589, 22 June 1927, Page 6

NAVAL LIMITATION

THE GENEVA CONFERENCE LORD JELLIGOE S VIEWS BRITISH POSITION EXPLAINED Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright GENEVA, Juno 21. (Received Juno 22, at noon.) Lord Jellicoe, interviewed, offered the following comment on the British proposals, which ho said were not only his personal opinions, but those of the whole of tho British Delegation:— “ Tho essence of tho British proposals is extreme frankness. I cannot conceive a better method of arriving at a good result than for each nation to say definitely what it wants and why it wants it—if all the delegates place their cards on the table and show each other the exact position of their naval defence. We must bo prepared to defend our demands for various numbers and types of vessels.

“The whole world knows that for Britain her Navy is a matter of the defence of the trade routes, without which Britain could not exist and the dominions and colonies could not market their products. Britain, in this respect, is in a different position from other countries. Japan is nearest to our position in her dependence on imports.

“ Wc can, and are, willing to show the world what wo need to defend our sea routes. Wo believe that if the others do tho same according to their own requirements it should eventually provide a basis for agreement. It seems obvious to mo that when wc come to detail, our first effort should he to reduce tho size of the ships in tho different classes. We propose to reduce the battleships by 5,000 tons and the cruisers—except those of 10,000 tons built under tho Washington Treaty—to 7,500 ions. Anyone who recollects the pre-war competitive shipbuilding must bs convinced that the British proposals contain the germ of an agreement. “ The system of reducing the size of warships .was recognised at Washington. it seems most logical to us to pursue this method and to try to reduce tho other classes as well as battleships. For instance, most nations claim .that tho submarine is a defensive weapon. As such it should bo considerably reduced in size. No one" can posibly call a submarine of 1,200 or 2,000 tons a defensive weapon for coastal defence. Submarines do not need to bo anything approaching those sizes.” Lord Jellicoo endorsed entirely the British naval experts’ examination of the British proposal, compared with those put forward by America and Japan. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE SET OP fßritish Official News.) Press Association—By Wiraless—Copyright. RUGBY, June 21. (Received June 22, at noon.) A communique issued at Geneva states that the Executive Committee of ic Naval Disarmament Conference today decided, with a view to proper consideration of tho proposals made by the United States, Britain, and Japan, to form a technical committee to exchange agreed statistics on tho present cruiser, destroyer, and submarine tonnages of each of the the three Powers, and of the designed tonnage in these classes.

JAPANESE PROPOSALS COMMENDED.

Press Asssciatia.—By Telegraph—Copyright,

WASHINGTON, June 21 (Received June 22, at noon.)

Tho Japanese naval limitation proposals are favorably received by officials hero as displaying a conciliatory spirit, tho satisfaction with the present strength of her navy, and willingness to remain in a position of comparative inferiority in all classes of ships to Britain and tho United States.

The British proposal is regarded as unsatisfactory in so far as it affects questions decided at tho Washington Conference, which, the Administration feels, should not ho discussed by the present conference, because of tho absence of two signatories to tho 1922 treaties.