NAVAL TONNAGE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17173, 1 February 1930, Page 5

NAVAL TONNAGE

COMPROMISE PLAN DISARMAMENT DISCUSSIONS ADVANCE TOWARDS AGREEMENT (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) _ LONDON, Jan. 51. Briefly put, the compromise plan of the Five-power Naval Conference, which is clumsily called the French transactional proposal, provides that eacli power shall specify the maximum figure of its total tonnage, which it will undertake not to exceed. Each power also will submit figures lor the categories of its ships, the tonnage oi which must not exceed the total tonnage. Tlie transference of a certain agteed percentage, say 10 per cent., will be allowable from one 'category to another, hut only with notice and a number of safeguards. Any increase in the tonnage of one category must lie accompanied by a corresponding decrease in another. The categories remain fixed for tho duration of tlie treaty, and after that are alterable only by 12 months’ notice to the League oi' Nations. The French want a deviation among all tlie but this is not likely to ho agreed to. The categories suggested are, firstly, battleships _of 10,000 tons and over, or ships carrying Bin. guns and over; secondly, cruisers carrying guns above 6in. calibre; thirdly, surface craft carrying less' than 6in. guns, including destroyers; fourthly, aircraft carriers; fifthly, submarines; sixthly, mine sweepers and various small craft. It is hoped that this division of cruiser categories will help to solve the problem outstanding between Britain and the United States, while the grouping of light cruisers and destroyers will meet (lie French naval requirements. Whether the categories stand as hero detailed remains to he seem It is known that the original British list, distinguishes between battleships and Sin. gun .cruisers. A great advance towards agreement among tho nations lies in the fact that while, tlie French hitherto argued that limitation would only be able to lie achieved by the total tonnage, leaving any State to allot- the tonnage according to its own requirements, and Britain held tho limitation could best, bo effected within the categories, now the first method has been approved, combining both ideas. BItITAIN ’ S PROGRAMME The modifications which Britain has introduced into her programme are referred to in a written reply to a Parliamentary, question by Air. A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty. He said the British naval vessels deleted from the programme of 1929 approved by Parliament were two cruisers, iji eluding tho Bin. gun ship, four destroyers, one net layer, and a target towing vessel, two sloops, and three submarines. Whether the three remaining submarines in the programme would ho proceeded with would ho decided after the conclusion of the conference. Air. Alexander, in reply to other questions, said that there are at present. 54 British Empire cruisers built, and four in an advanced stage of construction. STATUS OF DOMINIONS Air. Ramsay AlacDonald anjl the full British and Dominion delegations conferred for over t wo hours at St. James’ Palace. Mr. Fenton stated that Dominion status as defined in 1926 had been fully recognised. There had been no hitch. He believed that tlie difficulties arose in connection with the steering committee, on which all the delegations were represented. Gome objected to the extension of Dominion representation on it, expressing lhe opinion that it would give Britain the balance of power. Air. AlacDonald pointed out that nothing could be adopted unless thedecision was unanimous, and accordingly it would not matter how extensive was the .Dominion representation. An earlier proposal for a committee of two delegates from each power had been abandoned owing to the Dominions’ insistence on full representation, which was granted by the conference The committee as a -whole meets this afternoon for the first time since its inception to discuss in accordance with Mr. Stimson’s resolution yesterday the following agenda items: First, France’s system of global tonnage with a transactional basis and the classification of conditions of transfer; second, the British system of categorical limitation. FLEXIBLE CATEGORIES SYSTEM. OF LIMITATIONS NEW YORK, Jan. 31. The New York Times’ Washington correspondent, commenting on Mr. Gibson’s speech in London, says: “The system of limitations by flexible categories within total or global tonnages is one which meets with favor here, although it is evident that caution will have to bo exercised in applying it if trouble is to lie avoided among big naval men in the United States and their sympathisers in the Senate. The percentage of transfers front one class of ships to another must relatively be small if the general purpose of eliminating competitive naval programmes is to be achiev cd. There would be great difficulty in obtaining the consent of the Senate to any naval treaty with a wide latitude. ' ’