NAVAL LIMITATIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 August 1929, Page 5

NAVAL LIMITATIONS

BRITAIN’S SACRIFICES REPLY TO CRITICS (Australian Press Association.) (By Cable—l ress Assn.—Copyright.) LONDON, August 1. A naval correspondent points out that the extent of the Government’s naval cuts has scarcely been realised. It has been stated there is no real sacrifice of naval strength made in suspending the construction of the cruisers Surrey and Northumberland, and cancelling two submarines and the submarine depot at Medway, but actually all the named vessels belonged to the 1928 programme for which large sums have been voted by Parliament long ago. The scheme was estimated ,to cost about eleven millions. The action, of the Government has reduced this to five millions. Nor is it true to say that the vessels were merely contemplated. On the contrary all were ordered months ago and orders were already placed for material to the extent of £1,750,000, and authority given for an additional £1,400,000 during the current year. Apart from the blow to industry, there will undoubtedly be claims for compensation for broken contracts. The “Daily Telegraph’s’’ naval correspondent says, it will be seen that Britain has made a real and vital sacrifice in the interests of international disarmament and good will. Owing to the Admiralty cancelling the submarine contract, Beardmore’s have paid off seven hundred Clydeside workers.

BATTLESHIPS QUESTION.

(Received August 2, 11 a.m.) 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 the total abolition of battleships will be discussed. • Information shows that no official proposal has ever been made here for the complete elimination of this tyre of craft, despite the tremendous building expenses faced by the United States and other countries, at the beginning of 1931, uiider the replacement of ships of the 1922 capital ship treaty. American officials hold that* the 20 years’ period, set by the 1922 treaty as the life of a battleship, is too short, and point out that Britain has three battleships of the Hood type, much larger than America’s largest, and if the reduction is carried on along the lines proposed by the British, after the 1927 tripartite conference, Britain will have ships much more powerful than any possessed, or possible, to the United States.

MR BORAH’S LATEST!

WASHINGTON, August 1. In a statement to-day, Mr Borah, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, called on Great Britain to sink some of her i ships as a means of reaching parity with the American Navy. He said that Britain had fifty-nine modern cruisers, and America eighteen, built or building. Mr Borah was a luncheon guest of President Hoover yesterday, and it is presumed that the Naval Limitations Conference was discussed.