ARMAMENT LIMITATION

Taranaki Daily News, 8 April 1927, Page 7

ARMAMENT LIMITATION

PREPARATORY COMMISSION DELEGATE DISSATISFIED ALLEGED PARTISAN MOVE By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright. Received April 7, 9.36 p.m. Geneya, April 7. Lively passages followed the resumption of the proceedings at the Preparatory Commission on disarmament. M. De Marini (Italy), apparently feeling slighted by the private discussions between M. Boneour and Viscount Ceeil relating to naval disarmament, said it would be a mistake to imagine that, once an agreement was reached by them' the remainder of the commission would be prepared to accept that agreement. On the contrary the delegates would probably refer the matter to their Governments. I Viscount Cecil intervened hastily to assure M. Do Marini that there -was ho intention of forcing upon the commission any agreement readied privately. M. De Marini not seeming satisfied, M. Boneour rose up and protested that no private negotiations were in progress. He had simply submitted to Viscount Cecil in writing a formula based on yestex-day’s discussion. Viscount Cecil, who had previously told the Press that he was negotiating with M. Boneour, remained silent. M. De Marini continued to argue Ithe point and the commission adjourned after two hours’ disputation. Later, Germany submitted a formal proposal demanding the limitation of military material, including rifles, maehine-guns, all classes of howitzers, mortars and other artillery, tanks and armoured ears, as well as ammunition. The commission considered proposals to limit armament expenditure. Mr. Gibson opposed this on the grounds that it was impracticable and inequitable. He argued in favour of a direct limitation of armaments and declared the budgetary figures were an insufficient criterion of the limitation or otherwise of armaments. Count Bernstorff also opposed budget limitation, and the discussion was then adjourned.