New-York tribune., 1921-12-04
Prove
S. Generous
Navy Ratio
III Great Britain and Ja-
,,an We're Given Credit
ior Ships the Keels of
Which Had Not Been Laid
p.sis Of Estimate Shown
,lipponese Queries Are An
swered by Exhaustive Ex-
i s,lanation of the Statistics

81 S. WAShfNIAVlS, beS. 10Y Inc AS
J. IS. ss..s,ssed press).--The Associated Press
IS shle to-day TO present somc of the
sssxsai figures involved in the ex-
5 ss.,ves between the American and
ss.s,.s.sse counter claim for 'sI0-l0-7
4 llstus."
sfs submitting their original ques-
-,,snns;rc to the American experts ask
RS explanation of the Hughes pro-
,esal on seven specific points, the Japa-
80 officers included this question:
saExpiain the relation between the
Sss,,.cemert ratio of s50-50-30' and the
ssIsting ratio of '60-50-30' respectively
x Great Britain, the United States and
Jtpan."
: apiyy.
s;sstfng strength of the British navy has
sksta calculated as 100000 tens"
sessln answer the American experts
i issid:
81 'aAIthough Great Britain has not laid
he keels of her four new Hoods and
,shA Japanese have not laid the keels
a the Takao and the Atago, they have
spent money on all. In order to be
entirely fair, therefore, these ships
we're included in the lists of the re-
spective nations with the consequent
inxrease in their relative strengths.
when this was done the tonnage
xsassure of naval strength between the
J. United States and Japan was as fol-
Joys: United States, 1,118,650; Japan,
6SS6o0; ratio, United States 100 per
cent, Japan 53 per cent.
Existing Ratio Explained
As to the "60-50-30" existing strength
ntio calculation, the American an
sHer explained:
1.-THE war conditions caused Great
Britain to suspend her building pro-
grsm. In consequence her ships are
relatively older in type than those of
the United States and Japan. This
fact was considered in alIotting her
6e4,e00 tons for the present, but the
standard allotted her on requirements
was 100000 tons"
In explaining, as asked by the Jap
snese, the method of calculation of
existing strength, the American experts
said the basis taken was keels actually
laid down as of November II, the date
! vt the opening of the conference. The
lurtneI explanations given above, how
! eyer, show that this was not held
rigdly against Great Britain and
japan in the American plan, but only
against the United States. Money spent
By Great Britain and Japan on ships
not yet laid down was figured into the
existing strength OF these navies, but
not into American existing strength. T
The japanese experts also required a
specific list of the ships of the United
States and Japan on which the calcula-
ton Of existing strength was based, the
degree of completion allowed for each
ship building, and asked whether diff
sferences in methods of figuring. tonnage
used by the three nations were allowed
for in the calculations. This informa-
ton was supplied in the American
reply, with the assurance that the ton
mage figures of each foreign ship had
been recalculated on the American
sbasis to arrive at fair comparison.
Two Powers Compared
-.On the basis of these figures, and
Aso using Japanese estimates of Jap
tnese and American strength as fur
nished by the Japanese experts in mem
oranda, the American experts then
yet out the naval "relativities" of the
S3Fo powers in tables as follows:
First-American estimate of Amer
stcan strength and American estimate
N2f japanese strength.