SIR GEORGE WILKINS

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 13 February 1930, Page 5

SIR GEORGE WILKINS

SILENCE UNEXPLAINED WHALER REPORTS SIGNALS VERIFICATION SOUGHT I (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph I Copyright.) NEW YORK, Feb. 11. o.nc of the. whaling vessels seeking contact with Sir George Wilkins, in a wireless message, states: “The. William S'coresby was heard from 1400 GMT. ” The message d'itl not indicate the cause of Sir George Wilkins’ silence, Which remains a matter of mere conjecture. EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION I BUENOS AIRE’S, Feb. 12. •Radio stations in this vicinity have ! continued their efforts to establish communication with 'Sir George Wilkins in order to verify a report that whalers found. him near Deception Islam d. jjty of war should again break: out and submarine warfare be retained? If the submarine was regarded as a mainly defensive weapon, the British Empire could show greater need’ for defensive vessels than any Power, having regard to its mimense seaboard.and long lines of communication in ever sea. Yet she was prepared unreservedly to surrender such defensive protection . as submarines were argued to afford. Ho/submited) this point for the careful consideration of the Powers. Proceeding, Mr Alexander reminded delegates that they were there to confer in order to get an agreement which would mean a real reduction in armaments, to demonstrate their faith in the League Covenant and the Pact of Paris. Such a reduction would not only advance the cause of peace, but relieve economic burdens. The Powers represented had —built, building, or authorised —over 400 of .these vessels which were very expensive to build and maintain, and required an extensive provision of shore establishments and depot ships. Their abolition in itself would achieve an enormous reduction also in destroyers and anti-sub-marine units. DANGEROUS CRAFT TO OPERATE. Referring to the condition of the personnel of submarines he said that the loss of life even in peace time was terribly high. Since 1918 in connection with 12 mishaps in the course of the peace-time submarine operations of live powers no fewer than 5/0 men had met their deaths. He felt that a great opportunity would be missed if they failed to reach an agreement on this resolution. Failing that agreement, Britain would endeavour to confine the submarine to defence by limiting its strictly both in size and numbers and would accept the" lowest possible limits. They would also propose that if submarines are retained, most definite conditions should b© laid down and agreed upon with a view to preventing them from being used as commerce destroyers in violation of international law and practice. To that end Britain would seek to revive the agreement signed at Washington in 1922, but which was not fully ratified by the signatory Powers, to regulate attack of merchant ships by submarine in accordance with the rules and practice '-set out in tnat Treaty. AMERICAN SUPPORT. The chief American delegate, Mr Stimson, also made out a strong case against the retention of submarines. He said that the argument that it was purely a defensive weapon was difficult to> reconcile with the offensive made of it at great distances from its home ports. It was not a cheap weapon but was three or four times as costly ton for ton, as the largest types of surface ships. Its existence also imposed on all navies higher levels in anti-submarine, craft, such as destroyers and light cruisers. These, however, were, after all, secondary considerations since there was an insistent and growing demand among the nations that armaments be revised in the light of the solemn covenants of the Briand-Kellogg Pact. It would be a travesty of its purpose if the conference sanctioned an instrument of war the abuses of which were directly responsible for calling the Western world into the greatest waT in historv. In the light of experience is seemed clear that in any future war those employing the submarine would be under strong, and perhaps irresistible, temptation to use it in any way the most effective for immediate nu eposes, regardless of consequences. The American delegation, therefore, urged not on emotional grounds, but ns a practical common-sense measure, that a careful study be given to the possibility of ‘henceforth abolishing submarines. FRANCE INSISTENT.

id. Leygues, the French Minister ol Marine, contended tnat the submarine was a defensive weapon which all naval Powers could not do without., and that its use could be an should be regulated like that of any other warship. France could not accept its abolition, but was ready to concur in an international agreement regulating its use.

Signor Grandi (Italy) described the submarine as the weapon of the lessarmed nation against the more powerfully armed. Italy was ready to renew an undertaking restricting the use of submarines against merchant .ps._ and would not object to their abolition if all the naval Powers agreed. Admiral Takarabe (Japan) express--‘d 11 jot view that the submarine had its legitimate uses as a weapon of der e and as a scout, and was not to be condemned as a ruthless weapon in contradistinction to surface craft. Japan regarded it as a convenient arm for national defence, but one whoso uses should be strictly circumscribed by law. Mr Fenton (Australia). Colonel Ralston (Canada), Mr Chatterjee (India), Prof. Smi'Vly (Irish Free State), and Mr Wilford (New Zealand) briefly expressed agreement with the delegates of Britain and America. Mr Te Water (South Africa) promised to support every effort towards the limitation of submarines.

•MR STTMSON’S COMMENT “WELL WORTH VISIT TO LONDON ’ ’ LONDON, Feb. 12. Mr Stiinson, in. a statement to the Press concerning the plenary session, emphasised that there had been a definite decision, not a tentative one, whereby the five Powers had agreed to restrict" the use of submarines against

merchant ships to the same rules applying to surface vessels. 1 ‘ This single incident was worth the visit of the American delegation to London,” he said, ‘and marks a step in the matter .which our country once went to war about. I think the debate also showed a rising tide on the part off the nations for the eventual abolition of undersea craft. The happiest augury was that the motion to restrict the use of the submarine came from the French delegation.”