CRUISER TONNAGE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17179, 8 February 1930, Page 5

CRUISER TONNAGE

REDUCTION POSSIBLE BRITAIN WILL HAVE 15 NO REBUILDING BEFORE 1936 (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Alfa.} (Received Feb. 8. noon.) LONDON, Feb. 7. A reduction in the Anglo-American cruiser tonnage has been rendered possible by Japan agreeing not to press for the 10—10— 1 7 ratio, but accepting the 10—10— 6 ratio. Thus the balance of the fleets in the Pacific will work out on a much more favorable scale ' for the Dominions’ interests, to which Britain’s right to l ave a preponderance of com-merce-protecting cruisers 1* of major importance. The British Government’s memorandum as finally formulated after consultation with ’ the dominions, who agree to it. now issued, gives a definite idea, of Britain’s attitude regarding the American statement. It is proposed that the general agreement resulting from the present conference shall continue till 1936. a further conference reviewing the situation in 1935. Britain therefore suggests an agreement not only globally but categorically applicable to ships, aircraft- carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, plus eliminating competitive building and maintaining the equilibrium between fleets. Britain does not favor a general transfer to oilier categories of tonnage assigned to certain categories, and opposes the transfer regarding capital ships, aircraft carriers, and submarines. Britain suggests transferring a percentage of Bin gun cruisers to the 6in gun class. Britain also proposes that the number of each power’s capital ships fixed. by the Washington Treaty should lie reached 18 months after ratification of the treaty resulting from this conference, instead of in 1936. The gist of the British proposal is that she will scrap down to 15 as early as possible, namely, demolishing live vessels in 18 months, which is th* ouickest the Admiralty... can . manage. There would be no rebuilding before 1936. It is understood on the best authority that Messrs. MacDonald and Ptmison, in the light of America’s new determined that if they are unable to. reconcile the Fratico-Tts'ian demands in a general scheme the conference w'H reduce a definite satisfactory At glc-Amerioan-Japanese agreement. The tonnage committee appointed yes-,, terday made' considerable progress, and meets again to-morrow. SOLVING THE PROBLEM. ’ Among the momentous events of the history of Anglo-American relations will E>e the statement issued by Mr. Stimson last night. This proposes t< solve the cruiser, problem, which wal unsolved by President Hoover and Mr, MacDonald last- year, by giving the United States J lB large cruisers and Britain 15- and compensating Britain with 42,000 tons advantage in small cruisers. The Daily Telegraph’s naval correspondent says: “If complete parity be achieved next year, Britain must presumably be prepared to scrap the four Iron Dukes, the now organised training squadron, and possibly also the battle•ruiser Tiger, and the United States must discard at least three battleships, the Utah, Florida, and Arkansas or Wyoming, A sensible compromise seems to have been reached as regards the cruiser tonnage. The difficulty as to America’s 18 cruisers against the British fifteen will be removed by the proposed system of transfer between the Sin. and the 6in. class. It may he taken for granted that competitive building of the heavy cruiser class is now over between the United States and Britain, and the same may be said, indeed, as to every category of warship. The result will possibly _be unpalatable to American economists, as the United States, in order to obtain party, must build 10,000-ton cruisers, in addition to eight already afloat or on the stocks.” The Times, in an editorial, says: “No one in Britain and the United States recards war as within the range of possibility. but navies of approximate equal strength will help to put war completely out of the question and give the nations a sense of comfort and security. Tho details will require careful examination, and, maybe, some adjustment, but the statement seems to offer a -basis acceptable to both countries.” British official circles describe Mr. Stimson’s statement as very hopeful Sind encouraging, and offering an equitable and promising line of solution, and a big step towards the solution of outstanding Anglo-American problems.

MR. STIMSON’S STATEMENT UNITED STATES STRENGTH WASHINGTON, Feb. 7. A contrast is drawn here between Mr. Stimson’s statement to-day, under which the United States would be given 327,000 tons cruiser strength and the 315,000 tons which was tentatively suggested last year; the 300,500 tons which comprises the total provided in America’s adopted building programme, and the known desire of Mr. Hoover that the strength might be reduced to 185,000 tons. It is pointed out, however, that it would be necessary in carrying out Mr. Stimson’s proposals for the United, States to sacrifice t,he five 10,000-ton cruisers called for in the authorised 15-cruiser programme of 1929. The sacrifice, nevertheless, would be exclusively in blueprints, as none of the work has been begun. Furthermore, it is felt that the United States would have nothing to fear in British superiority of total cruiser tonnage, due to America’s greater number of tho 10,000 tons type.