New-York tribune., 1921-11-14
British Back
Proposal for
Navy Holiday
tcsntlausd from PAGE enc,

four, on Friday afternoon, was some
what prolonged. The fact that on Sat
urday Mr.. Balfour proposed Mr.. Hughes
for chairman of the conference, in terms
obviously so cordial, has perhaps no es-
peclal significance but during the speech
OF Mr.. Hughes l could detect on the
faces of the British delegates, all of
whom have watched on many occa
sions, no trace of dissatisfaction or
even OF surprise No men could have
behaved more blandiy under a bomb
shell: can only give it as my opin-
ION that IN principle Great Britain will
accept the American proposals.
Let me explain exactly how far this
statement carries US. To begin with
1t is unouestionable that Britain wants
to substitute tripartite understand
ing between the United States, Japan
and herself for the Anglo-Japanese al
lance. The speech of Mr.. Hughes sug-
gests an idea basis for such an under
Next, II may be taken for granted that
Britain, in her anxiety lest the situa-
ton between the United States and
Japan should become acute, has had
her fears lest the conference should
open with demands on Japan in China
which, however reasonable and neces-
ssry in them selves, might be misun-
dersrood at Toxic. Mr.. Hughes has
thrown the limelight ON disarmament
and has thus secured for the more
delicate problems Of the Pacific Ocean
a eulet consideration, in an atmosphere
remote from excitement This is wise
and helpful diplomacy which will he
appreciated nowhere more warmly than
oy the Craftsmanship of Japan herself.
Thirdly, Britain will approve of the
separatlon OF naval from military dis
armament Of course, it reduces the
position OF France and Italy in the con-
ference-aS any rate, for the moment
to that Of spectators. Also, it is, per-
haps, unduly TO the advantage of Japan.
For If you limit navies in the Pacific
Ocean and leave Japan with her army.
she retains, as it were, the odd piece
in the game of chess. One must assume.
then, not as matter of specific infor-
nation, but as matter of deduction,
that as things stand to-day, the naval
agreement depends very definitely on
the parallel understandings over the
open door. This, at any rate, appears
to be the only possible conclusion to
draw from the speech of Mr. Hughes.
In British quarters there has been,
OF course, much expert discussion of
some formula for naval disarmament.
To be frank, it was felt by us after our
CA pei iCdNC Will 1SIHIdAy LIldC GpDTVpTl-
ations of money for the navy afford no
test at all. Ships can be built on credit
and items of expenditure can be con-
cealed in other votes by all the articles
of bookkeeping. Nor, as it seemed to
US. can personnel be considered fair
standard. After all, seamen and Off
GERS can be tucked away in coast guard
stations or incorporated in mercantile
marine. Hence, before August, 1914, we
always compared ourselves with Ger
many in terms of dreadnoughts or capi-
tai ships. You cannot conceal the build
ing of dreadnought. 1t is far too
big an industrial operation. Therefore
it may be expected confidently that Brit
ain will welcome the big battleship as
the unit for comparing navies You
cannot argue this matter in complicated
terms Of coast line and dock yards The
arithmetic of it must be simple and
direct and plain to public opinion.
Also, it is, / think. worth noting that
all the progressive schools of naval ex-
perts doubt whether these battleships
will ever again go into battle. That
certainly was Lord Fishers view, and
might have been text for Mr.. Hughes. |
AS for the naval holiday, this has been
observed in Britain for more than three /
years. We have thrown-if | remember /
than three thousand war
vessels on the scrap heap since the ar
mistice and have reduced our battle
ships from more than sixty, all in com t
to fewer than thirty, OF which /
less than half are in commission. Our I
four projected post-Jutland battleships
are arranged on contract which de- /
pends on the results of the Washington
conference. The contracts can be ar
rested at any time.
Americans should thus realize that
is made between their
navy as expanded and our navy as re-
duced- But having said this, ( add
that Mr. Hughes has-fn effect adopted /
Lord Lees one-power standard and
has allowed with characteristic tact
a slight superiority in tonnage to
Britain as an island power. In actual
strategy, the superiority--expre
in ships already obsolescent-mea
little. In handling British sentiment,
it may mean much.
There will be people in Britain of
who will say that Mr.. Hughes