SUBMARINES QUESTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 3106, 27 December 1921, Page 5

SUBMARINES QUESTION.

ARGUMENTS'ON.BOTH SIDES. APPREHENSIONS OF FRANCE. ABOLITION NOT AGREED TO. By Electric Telegraph-Copyright. Received December 27, 8 a.m. WASHINGTON, Dec. 24. Official: At tho meeting of the joint naval committee to-day M. Sarraut continued the Krench arguments. He emphasised the fact that: the apprehensions of Kranco were directed towards the Powers not represented at Ihe conference, lie said the views e::pre«sed bv his delegation vvero no! on y France's, bin were shared by others. Should the right to build submarines be denied to the smaller nations, either by force or moral constraint, there would be no choice when they saw other nations maintaining costly fleets. If ever moral constraint weir used in relation to .such nations, antagonism would immediately be aroused. Hence, though the conference were unable to come to a decision regarding submarines, they had agreed to reductions. The means ot defence might be left to the consideration of (lie countries themselves. He might suggest a general conference In winch all ihe Vnunlties would be represented who were interested in submarines, and reallv effective decisions might then be readied. Ml! BALFOUR MX PLAINS. Mr A. J. Balfour pointed out that M. Briand's declaration that France's fears cam,, from the land side had caused abiuidonmenl ol all idea of discussing land disarmament ai this conference. France having ended that chance, proceeded to develop her sea policy, embracing a vast submarine fleet. If the danger from these two positions was as great as was. indicated it must mean that Germany had revived not only her army, bin also her navy, also both contrary to tin* Versailles Treaty. fiance could not deal with, an attacking submarine navy with her submarine fleet. however ' large. Britain alone could supply the seafaring population with which the submarines could be controlled. How was that consistent with ihe building of a huge submarine fleet ': Mr Balfour urged finally that even if the conference unanimously decided to condemn submarines as a weapon inconsistent wiih civilisation ii wouid have n great moral effect even on nations not represented there, M. Sarraul reiterated that France inusl have submarines to protect her transports and lines of communication in case of war. She w;;-, not actuated by an aspiration to become a groat maritime power, since already she had consented to a reduction in her capital ships. She did not want submarines to attack her neighbour. AGREEMENT IMPOSSIBLE. Mr Hughes said lie thought the committee had reached the point where it must be concluded. It was impossible to reach an agreement, lie expressed his deep sense of obligation for the spirit of which the British proposition gave evidence, and which had been maintained against apparently hopeless odds. If the arguments of Lord Lee and Mr Balfour could be answered. Mr Hughes thought that answer was yet to co fie was quite aware that in the United States there was a growing sentiment against the submarine, this being due to the abhorrence of the uses to which it had been put. "SHOULD BK OUTLAWED." There was a feeling that the submarine should be outlawed, and this feeling had been powerfully reinforced by what had been said at the conference, but considering the differences of opinion expressed il was impossible to expect a result favourable to abolition. If at any time it was found feasible to take the matter of abolition up, the United Slates would give n (he most serious attention. Mr Hughes said lu' hoped that what had been said would bo provocative of thought throughout the world. He hoped the Five Powers would agree, to denunciation of illegal methods'of submarine warfare in terms olearly understandable, and bind themselves to assure application of principles ol international law in connection with submarine warfare. Tl immittee should now consider the restriction of submarine [onnii"e He believed Ihose favouring that arm should frankly tell the conference what were their minimum requirements, and how far ihev were prepared to accept reductions and restrictions. ' Precise proposals would later be brought forward by the L ; nir(H | Slates. Mr Hughes asked lor the ~pinions of the delegates on the subject ot limitation.

BRITISH DELEGATION'S OPINION. \t Mr Ball'our'.s request, (ho commi J,,,.,.,! on record Hie. following: "Tie British Empire delegation desires lormally o plarr on record its opinion Rial Ihe use ,f submarines, while of small va ue lor de•eusivc purposes, lead- inevitably to nets lV |,icli are inconsistent with Ihe laws ol ,vnr and the dictates of humaniiy; ami I ie lelegatiou desires that united action he ~!;,,„ | )V |,|| the nations to forbid tlipir iminlonsinco. construction or pmploymeiit. INDUCTIONS SUGGESTED. Ml . i| u „|i,.s said the American delegation W as entirely willing to accept instead ol H, c 90.000 ions proposed as the "ia.\,mim. imil 00.000 lons, thus scrapping to.WU lons of the existing submarine tonnage 011 the basis lliat Britain would also accept 50 000 tons and scrap 22,464 lons. J hen 1,/ tll e desire to make whatever accommodation was possible to meet the news ol ,1„, o t| H , r .delegations. Mr Hughes suggested that, if the United Slates and Britain ~,',uced as indicated, France, Italy and Jniinn should retain the tonnage tlnv ha!,, in accordance with the figures given the other (lay. GREAT BRITAIN ACCEP'IS. , ■V soon as the afternoon session opened, Mv Balfour announced that Britain accepted the American proposal. ITALY WANTS MORE. Bignor Schan/er. after re-stating [July's position, said he though, m view of al> s special maritime position, he could claim a eater proportion of light crait and B«b- - than wus the case with cap.al ships. Italy's present submarine eel, ol bout 21.000 lons was absolutely msufficH it I H was found so during the war. Since tin t ,1 stice they had scrapped 30 submarines a hough'the experts considered a, quo a 31 500 Tons insulhcicnr, Italy was ready to accept this figure under conditions of parity with France, about which they had precise categorical instructions Iron, then ; Government. WHAT JAPANESE WANT. Air llanihara said the Japanese were profoundly impressed by the power ul Biitfch rguments, but they were unab e to con vince themselves that submarines weie no ail effective weapon of defence Japan at ;" V, ( , o{ accepting the capital ship ratio submarines, which was given at 54,000 S, s ffi Japan considered the inmmium amount of tonnage adequate. Japon coum „ot accept the new proposals gmng he XateTsofiy t considerations of de-

f T Sarraut stated that in view of go considerable reduction proposed lo oi.OJi i i lifWni svstems ot measurenaTliL emin ntlf desirable to adopt rinLsvX and* avoid international D, ff&, suggestion a .ub-adjourned.-A. and X.Z. cable. NEWSPAPER COMMENT. Reived December 27. 8 a.m. WASHINGTON, Dec 25. Such '-ommont as «pponrs in the inoniinc '" n dwells on this altered at.t.ule ol • ~ ;1S pointed out by Mr Balfour yea- ,.„!:■ v -p'riullv ibe Krcnch insistence on , ;;: IV \; far in excess of her needs. Regardin„ tile restriction of submarines ] somejcon;;nl;l,or.s consider the projected hvo-Powei ;";;,,, , r ,. :11v (if applied only lo ho serap- ..:,.„ 0 f h;,|'ileships, maintaining (he agreed I ,",.;, ~!„ ;,,,, : , naval holiday, and pro- ,•, ',, ' { , \\\'.cw.\ limitation on auxiliary ', !.':.', U()l ,',i' ;',' more advantageous than a (K-Vmile a' rccmcnl regarding submarines. |, u.eild firstly open the door lo Brilam s advowicv of abolition, which would gallier height 'with all the nations. Secondly, the prospect of future abolition might deter

mm building more than they own al pitcut; and thirdly, if Iho nations, are given t free band in the matter it is unlikely i u , v will build beyond their hnanctal ,biiil,y, instead of feeling constrained o mild up to the limit specified.-bpeciai to Vnsli-iilian Press Association.