“POISON RUMOURS”

Taranaki Daily News, 24 September 1928, Page 9

“POISON RUMOURS”

THE NAVAL COMPROMISE HEARST PRESS CAUSES STIR LEAKAGE OF INFORMATION PERTURBATION IN EUROPE By Telegraph—Frese Asia.—Copyright. Australian Press Association. Received Sept. 23, 5.5 p.m. London, Sept. 22. A considerable stir has been produced in London and Paris by the Hearst Press publishing a letter dealing with the Anglo-French “naval compromise.” The letter itself is certainly not a compromise. It consists of only 2)6 or 30 lines of clear, precise technical phrases. Summed up, they limit the construction of large cruisers and large submarines and allow liberty in the construction of other classes, always within the Washington agreement. That is all. There is nothing secret; it is not a military alliance of any sort. Only five copies of the compromise exist. These are possessed by the Foreign Offices in London, Paris, Washington, Rome and Tokio. The Quai D’Orsay admits that the publication appears to be based on M. Briand’s letter to the French Embassies. There is much perturbation as to where the leakage occurred.

The Times says the evidence shows that both Britain and France have been struggling hard to find a way out of the deadlock in order to assist the Disarmament Commission. The compromise was put forward as a possible basis for a calm, reasonable discussion, bu the atmosphere has been poisoned by a prolonged campaign of misrepresentation. The motives of both Governments were good, but they committed an unfortunate error of procedure. The world being what it is and the presidential election being in progress in the United States, they should have published forthwith their innocuous agreement.

The Paris Press is surprised at Hearst's publication of the so-called secret clauses. Le Matin describes it as a sensational bluff and really prevarication designed to impress public opinion, “but it will have no effect on the American Government.”

Contrary to rumours continually repeated in some quarters, the full terms, and not only part of them, were communicated to the United States, Japanese and Italian Governments some weeks ago. It is understood that the Japanese and Italian Governments have notified Paris and London that they are disposed to be favourably impressed by the proposals as a basis for discussion, but in the absence of a reply from Washington publication of the proposals has be n delayed in accordance with the usual procedure in such cases.

The normal procedure in this instance has provoked an unprecedented crop of rumours which entirely misinterpreted the purpose, extent and aim of the compromise.

The facts are that progress at the preparatory commission for the disarmament conference had been for a long period delayed by differences of view on systems of reckoning naval tonnage, the leading protagonists being the British and the French representatives. Broadly stated, Britain favoured calculation by naval categories and France by a fixation of global amounts divisible according to the individual desires of the Powers concerned.

As the result of private conversations the British and French representatives reached a compromise which would enable progress to be resumed in the preparatory commission, provided always that the other chief naval Powers accepted it. It was promptly communicated in full to the other Powers affected, it having been explicitly stated by Lord Cushendun, acting-Foreign Secretary, and the other Ministers that in the event of the proposals not pr ing acceptable to them the compromise would automatically cease to have importance, in which event the search for agreement would have to be resumed in the preparatory commission along other lines. British officials circles naturally cannot comment on the authenticity or otherwise of a document belonging to another Power which the American newspaper publishes, although the terms reproduced of the naval compromise are accurate except for a reference to the tonnage of ocean-going submarines. Such vessels are reckoned as deep water craft when they exceed 600 and not 6000 tons as stated in the American report.