Evening star., 1921-12-29

compromise" proposal of 10000 tons
for Britain and the United States
and S1,500 tons for France. The
French delegation referred the mat
ter to its government. which returned
an unfiinching demand for 10000 tons
Of submarines for France. regardless
Of what the other countries might de-
eide to do. one way or the other. Ii
will be recalled that Frances origi-
nal demand in capital ships was for
$4,000 tons, as against 100000 for
Britain and the United States and
100000 for Japan. France agreed. in
the face of the united opposition of
the conference, to give up this de-
mand and accept only 175,6e0 tons of
capital ships. but on the express con-
dition that there be no interference
with what it considers its needs in
the way of submarines and auxiliary
craft. 1t now consents to limit" it's
submarine tonnage to 10000 tons, and
its auxiliary tonnage to $4,000 tons
From this position it has served no
tice that it will not retreat
Only to Attack Britain.
Upon hearing this statement made be
fore the naval committee Arthur Bal
four. head of the British delegation,
went SO far as to say that the subma-
rine fleet contemplated by France could
only be for the purpose Of attacking
British commerce. NJ. Sarraut answered
taat the French submar rines were not for
the purpose of destroying British COM
merce nut for naval defense. Mr.. Bal
four then said rather plainly that he
refused to believe this. NJ. Sarraut, evi-
dently deeply resenting Mr.. Balfours at
titude declared that Fra nee did not pre-
sumo to ask the question, against whom
BritainS feet of 100000 tons Of capital
ships. whose use is admittedly Offensive,
is directed. 1t assumed that Britain
was its friend. and is unable to under
staI:d the British inference that Frenel
sui marines would be directed against
Britain Mr.. Balfour replied that Britain
could not look with indifference" on the
French submarine fleet-which Is a
diplomatic way Of saying that Britain
would look upon it with the most in
tense hostility and suspicion.
The French continue to claim that
their demand Is based purely on con-
siderationS of national defense-con-
siderations in which. as A. Sarraut
said, no country is justified in trust
ing TO the good offices of its neigh
bors" France must defend its coast
its colonies and especially its commun-
ications with its coianies. from which.
in time of war. troops would have TO
empire" NJ. Sarraut explained, really
exists, though some would seem 20 be
ignorant of it," This is particularly
sore point with NJ. Sarraut. a. he is
himself minister of colonies in the
French government. after having been
for number of years governor gen
eral of French Indo-China The French
are rather resentful because they feel
that what they regard as their great
concession in capital ships has already
been slurred over and forgotten. in the
effort to force down their submarine
program. They deny that there is any
necessary relation between capital
ships and submarines.
Their real quarrel with the confer
ence is based on what is almost a
misunderstanding. The conference
theory. as voiced repeatedly by Chair
man Hughes, and echoed by other
powers, is that this is conference
to cut down ornaments, not 10 in
crease them.
The French theory is that. in any
case. a nation must have sufficient
armament to meet what ii considers
it's own needs. They feel that Britain.
the United States and Japan, which
had been engaged in q naval race.
we're ovcrarmed. and that in cutting
down armament they have neverthe-
less kept enough ships for their re-
spective needs. France, on the other
mana. was. tney assert, unQerafmeo.
in a naval way. They do not care how
many ships of whatever category
others powers may choose to build
they must be allowed to establish Il
navy in accordance with theih own
needs. as sovereign and Independent
state.
They point out that in the matter
of aircraft-carriers. OF which the
United States now has only one-a
converted collier Of 17.800 tons-the
Hughes plan. despite the principle
that this is a conference to limit,
not to increase. armament. provides
that the United States and Britain
may build up to $4,000 tons each OF
this new class of ship.
The submarine dispute will prob
ably end in the dropping of the auXili-
airy ship question. This will not
mean, however, the failure of the con-
ference. The agreement on capital
ship ratio will stand. 1t is in itself
q notable achievement
Copyright. 1921