LONDON NAVAL TREATY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21033, 23 May 1930, Page 9

LONDON NAVAL TREATY

REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS. BRITAIN’S PROGRAMME. . CRUISER AND DESTROYER. (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph— Copyright.) RUGBY, May 21. Mr A. V. Alexander (First Lord of the Admiralty), in the House of Commons, said. that, orders had been given for work on the fiin gun cruiser Leander to be built at Devonport, and for two destroyers at' Portsmouth. Tenders for the Leander and the two remaining destroyers to be built by contract were under consideration. It was proposed to proceed forthwith with the building of three submarines, two of approximately 650' tons each, and one of approximately 1800 tons. A considerable part of. the .1020 naval programme had been cancelled, and this represented the remainder of it. The submarines referred to were three of the six authorised by Parliament last year. Regarding any other building programme, * the Government must consider the necessary replacement in accordance with the London Naval Treaty. He was. unable to say when the full programme could be presented. . Eighty-two. Conservative members of the House of Commons, headed by Rearadmiral Beamish, tabled a motion that part three of the naval treaty," dealing with cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, is contrary' td the interests of the British Empite,. and ought not to be ratified. MR BALDWIN’S ATTITUDE. ■ , LONDON, May 21. Mr Baldwin refused-to associate himself with the naval motion, on the ground that it would lead to a misrepresentation of the Conservative attitude on disarmament. The motion is likely to, be withdrawn. | ; CRUISER ALLOTMENT. • THE AMERICAN COMPROMISE. . WASHINGTON, May 21. .Senator Reed, testifying before the Foreign Relations. Committee, said Australia and New Zealand'had.'refused to sign the London. treaty if the United States were permitted. 21 Sin • gun cruisers. This disclosure was made in reply to Admiral Pringle’s insistence that, the. United States should have maintained the. Navy General Board’s demand for this number. . Senator Reed explained that Australia and New Zealand had contended that this allotment ■ for the United States would, have increased Japan’s cruiser' allotment, thus constituting .a threat to them. “Is not an honourable peace.better than war?” Senator Reed asked; .“ Yes, sir,” replied Admiral Pringle. “Well, is it not ol* yious that everyone, had to make compromises in London?- 'Would;you rather, have seen the conference fail than make a concession? ’’ Senator Reed asked. Cross-examining. Admiral Pringle, Senator Reed asked; “Did you know that Australia and New Zealand threatened not only to refuse to sign the treaty giving us 21 Sin gnu. cruisers, but to build Some Sin cruisers of their own? ” . Admiral Pringle opposed the cruiser reduction, ■ hut finally conceded, under Senator Reed’s persistent questioning,; that “it was a very successful piece of negotiating on the .part of the United .States delegation/’"a-. ,( \ ; . Senator Reed was one of. the United States, delegates to the London Conference. ARTICLE 19 OF TREATY. - ,i INTENTION NOT CLEAR. NEW YOKE, May 21. It is understood that Mr Stimson has agreed- tentatively to .an exchange of Notes with Great Britain ahd Japan-to clarify article Iff of the treaty.. This is the result of a senatorial objection that trader the article Britain could scrap her 6in gun cruisers and begin building Bin gun replacements, provided only that the latter were not completed until the'day after the treaty expired in 1936. THE JAPANESE DELEGATES. , RETURN FROM CONFERENCE. KOBE, May 21. Except for one naval officer who committed harakiri in the express train sleeper, the return of Admiral Takarabe and the naval Ministers from London passed off without tragedy. They stayed at Harbin for a few days while the Diet session was concluded in order to avoid meeting the legislators. . Upon .their arrival'at Shimonoseki a patriot presented to'them a dagger with a letter advising .atonement by suicide, while denunciatory handbills were also distributed. A warm welcome, combined with the discretion of Admiral Kato (Chief of the Ifyivy Staff)who strongly opposed the navy treaty, warded off further demonstrations.