NAVAL LIMITS.

Grey River Argus, 8 April 1927, Page 5

NAVAL LIMITS.

GENEVA DIFFERENCES. Dictation Disavowed. (Received April 7 at 9.30 p.m.) GENEVA, April 7. Lively passages followed the re sumption of the proceedings at the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament. Signor De Marinis (Italy) apparently was feeling slighted by the private discussions that have been going on between M. Boncour (France) and Lord Cecil (Britain) relating to naval disarmament, as indicated yesterday. Signer De / Marinis said that it would be a mistake to imagiife that once agreement was reached by the two delegates mentioned, the remainder of the Commission would be prepared to accept that agreement. On the contrary, the delegates probably would refer the matter to their respective Governments. Lord Cecil intervened hastily to assure Signor De Marinis that there was no intention of forcing upon the Commission any agreement reached privately. De Marinis not seeming satisfied, M.; Boncour rose up and protested that no private negotiations were in progress. He had simply submitted to Lord Cecil, in writing, a new formula, based cm yesterday's discussion. Lord Cecil, however, had previously told the Press that he was negotiating with M. Boncour, remained silent. Signor De Marinis continued to argue the point. The Commission adjourned, after two hours’ disputation. Later, Germany submitted a formal proposal demanding a limitation of military materia], including rifles, machine guns, all classes of howitzers, mortars, other artillery, tanks, armoured cars, as well as ammunition. The Commission also considered the proposals to limit armament expendi ture. Mr Gibson (America) opposed this limitation, on the grounds that it would be both impracticable and inequitable. He argued in favour of a direct limitation of armaments. He declared that a country’s budgetary figures were not a sufficient criterion of limitation or otherwise- of its armaments. Count Bernstorff also opposed any Budget limitation. The discussion was adjourned.