ARMS LIMITATION

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10368, 8 April 1927, Page 5

ARMS LIMITATION

LIVELY PASSAGES-AT-ARMS.

ANGLO-FRENCH DISCUSSIONS.

DELEGATE ANNOYED

(United Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Received April 6, 9.30 p.m.) * ' GENEVA, April 7. Lively passages followed the resumption of the proceedings at the Preparatory Commission’s session on disarmaments. %

M. DeMarinis is apparently feeling slighted by the private discussions between M. Paul Boncour and Viscount Cecil relating to naval disarmament, which were indicated yesterday! Jtie said it would be a mistake to imagine that once an agreement was reached 'by them that the remainder of the commission would be prepared to accept that agreement. On the contrary the delegates will probably refer the matter to their governments. Viscount Cecil intervened hastily to assure M. De Marinis that there was no intention of forcing upon the commission any agreement reached privately. M. De Marinis, not seeming satisfied, M. Paul Boncour rose up and protested that no private negotiations were in progress. He had simply submitted to Viscount Cecil, in writing, a formula based on yesterday’s discussion. Viscount Cecil, who had previously told the press that he was negotiating with- M. Paul Boncour, remained silent.

M. De Marinis continued to argue the point, and the Commission adjourned after two hours’ disputation. Later Germany submitted a formal proposal, demanding the limitation of military material, including rifles, machine guns, all classes of howitzers, mortars and other artillery, tanks, armoured cars as well as ammunition. The Commission considered proposals to limit armament expenditure. Mr Gibson opposed this on tho grounds that it would be impractic able and inequitable. He argued in favor of the direct limitation of armaments, and declared that the Budgetary figures were insufficient criterion of limitation, or otherwise of armaments.

Herr Bernstorff also opposed tlia budget limitation. The discussion was adjourned.—A.N.Z.C.A.