The New York herald., 1921-11-17
Two British Suggestions to
Be Fought by q. s. Naval
Experts.
AUSTRALIA MAKES STAND
America Willing to Listen to
Pleas on Construction of Long
Cruising Submarines.
Special Despatch to THE NEW York HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau.
Washinrtan. ID. C.. Nav. l6.

Special Despatch to THE New York HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau.
Washington, ID. c., Nov. 10.
The British suggestion that the
naval Powers build one ship year
in order to maintain dock yards was
studied by the American delegates
and naval experts to-day. No official
declarations were made, but the re-
action Of the American delegation
was distinctly unfavorable.
1t was believed by the American
spokesman that building one capital
ship year, and building for foreign
account, would be distinct violation
of the spirit Of naval holiday ex-
tending over ten years, as proposed
by Secretary Of State Hughes. 1t
was this programme which had been
accepted by the foreign delegates in
spirit and principle"
American experts are equally op-
posed to the British suggestion that
the submarine tonnage suggested by
Secretary Hughes be cut down. The
American exports are willing to listen
to the argument against the construc-
ton of more long cruising submarines.
but believe the long coast line Of the
United States and the difficulty Of
moving undersea boats from point to
point on this extended littorai make
the proportion suggested by Mr..
Hughes necessary for the United
States. Not only is the defence of the
coast a necessary part of the American
scheme OF national defence. but pro-
lection of the Panama Canal is an in
tegraI part of the responsibility resting
upon the American navy.
Nothing to Do with Tonnage.
The position Of the American dele
gates in opposition to the suggestion
that each nation build one ship year
has nothing to do with the relative
tonnage involved. 1t is assumed that
the one additional ship built would be
substituted for an older ship scrapped.
It is believed that the ten year naval
holiday is = great moral argument In
favor of armament. which will ac-
custom the world to getting along with
few ships of war and without war itself
In their viewpoint the ten year pro-
gramme bulks large and is one OF the
chief elements in the Hughes plan.
Building ships for foreign account
would lessen the effect of this decision.
1t would make 1t possible for naval
Powers to start building ships for other
Governments and take them over upon
the threat of war. The argument that
shipyards will be made idle, men put out
of employment. &c, Is recognized as
fact, but one which must be accepted
1t is believed the money released In this
way will find an outlet in other activi-
ties which will give at least equal en-
ployment.
British Are Criticised.
The fact that Admiral Kato in the
conference gave more attention to the
replacement phase OF the naval question
than any other, while Mr.. Balfour, dwell
ing on the submarine phase. merely men
toned replacement incidentally, did not
protect the British delegation from do
mestic criticism.
In going over the case to-day they
declared that they hoped their naval
experts would find a way out or All
practical difficulties so that they would
suggest as few changes az possible IN
the plan as laid down by America. on
this point Australia has taken nrm
stand. her position being that she oil al:
the British dominions is in most need
of having her commerce protected. Inc
Australians incline toward the retention
of a sufficient number OF fast cruisers
TO guard them against the ravages of
raiders such as those operated by Ger
many In the Pacific during the early
days of the war.