REAL DISARMAMENT

Northern Advocate, 11 July 1927, Page 5

REAL DISARMAMENT

LOWEST SIZES POSSIBLE

THE BRITISH SPECIFIC,

SMALL CRAFT AGREEMENT.

(United Press Assn. —Copyright.) (Received 9 a.m.) GENEVA, July 9

The Xaval Conference agreed that destroyer leaders should he 1850 tons and destroyers 1500 tons, with 5-ineh guns and an age limit of 10 years. Agreement has not yet been reached on total tonnage. When the executive of the Disarmament Conference met today for the first time in a week, a gloomy feeling prevailed regarding the cruiser question.

After the meeting, however, there was happier note apparent. Japan attempted to provide a compromise by suggesting that cruisers and destroyers be classed together when estimating the maximum tonnage. It was very doubtful whether this would bo helpful, but after lunch, Mr W. C. Bridgeman (First Lord of tho Admiralty) announced that he was more hopeful than a few clays ago. He emphasised the absurdity of Britain being forced to build cruisers of a type she did not want, just to suit America. “We have never boon iu favour of the offensive 10,000-ton 8-inch gun cruiser class,” he said. “It was adopted at the Washington Conference against our will. Beal disarmament can only be achieved by fixing the lowest sizes and tho longest ages for ships compatible with security. Britain’s proposals would save a million sterling on each large cruiser or half a million on each smaller vessel. There has never been any question of cruiser parity between Britain and the United States. Each country can state its own needs.”

A pressman asked: "If the United States accepted a 7500 tons maximum for a cruiser, would you scrap your 10,000-tonners?” Mr Bridgemanr "I will wait till the proposition .is seriously made. Of course, it sounds an attractive proposition for those who have 10,000-tonncrs to scrap.” After Mr Bridge.raan’s statement, the general impression prevailed that, while agreement on the cruisers is impossible, the .conference will try to launch a treaty regarding destroyers and submarines.

Another leading British delegate, in summing up the situation, said the ferenee was continuing "because the Americans are slow to face the real issue; in other words President Coolidge is unwilling to permit the breakdown of his own conference and face the music of American responsibility therefor.”

Mr Hugh Gibson, chief American representative, said after the meeting: "I refuse to be discouraged. We at present are no nearer a solution, but all sincerely want naval limitation. Wo believe we shall eventually find a way out and we are determined to keep on trying till we do.” British circles today point out that the new Japanese proposals are not acceptable, chiefly because they arc based on Japan’s short ago limit of warships, which throws an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. The application of the British age limits to the Japanese figures gives a total tonnage not far short of Britain’s own proposals. The executive has decided to convoke a plenary session for Monday, when the fate of the conference will be decided.

MENDACIOUS CAMPAIGN,

MEETINGS SHOULD BE OPEN,

ONLY CURE FOR RAIDERS,

(Received 11.40 a.m.) LONDON, July 10

“Empire interests arc suffering as a result of secret meetings which only give an opportunity for the unscrupulous section of the foreign Press to misrepresent our proposals and invent most grotesque fables. I hope that future meetings will be open to the Press. This is the only way in which to arrest this mendacious campaign,” declared Sir James Parr on arrival last night from Geneva.

He added: “The only cure for the raider is 'the cruiser, Britain’s claim fo 70 cruisers is reasonable to the intelligent civilian. New Zealanders and Australians, with 12,000 miles of trade route to protect, support Britain’s measures to keep the ocean highways clear. If the conference breaks down it will be because the nations decline to recognise facts about our far-flung Empire.”— A.P.A. and Sun.

PROS AND CONS,

U.S, NEWSPAPER OPINION.

('Received 9 a.m.)

■NEW YORK, July 9

The “Chicago Tribune” says: “Any concrete benefits to be expected from the Naval Conference in respect to expenditure and stable relations seem at this stage doubtful, but there is very real danger that the conference will have the deplorable consequence of increasing international irritation and distrust.” The leader then bitterly attacks the British point of view. The “New York Times” is one of the few newspapers which strongly support the British contentions. It stresses that the American delegates have swung

from economy to parity in naval strength, and adds that the purpose of the conference was to secure economy. It points out that the British proposals mean a saving of £150,000,000 to the Powers concerned, and expresses fear that the rush for parity will prove expensive.—A. and N.Z.