Bisbee daily review., 1921-12-01
JAPS REFUSE.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE oNE)


 can method of calculations and the 5-5-3 ratio, not insisting on a 10-1O-7 ratio. This was based on the con- clusion of the British and American experts that the Japanese naval off cers had been unable to show any sound claim to d 70 per cent status on the basis of figures they have pre- sented There was expectation, how ever, that to any offer by the Japan eses group, to accept the 5-5-3 ratio, would be coupled condition as to an agreement on naval bases in the Pacific. That question has not yet been injected into the conference. The subcommittee of naval ex- perts quit where they started, at the capital ship ratio It is known that
 in two weeks of -dts j;ussion, ehey have not touched on any ether point. Such items as the 10 year soliday, sub marines, proportional allotment of tonnage in auxiliary craft, Were de- ferred until the capital ship ratio prop lem was solved. The arms confer ence stpl stands tonight, so far as its major objective-the naval agree raent-goes, at that point.
 Britain, U. S., In Accord
 | In Japanese circles, pleas to sup
 port the Japanese claim for 70 per cent ratio were put forward, but they ' were based largely, on questions of
 national security and not on claims
 as to present strength of the two na- vies. The only compilation of figures
 presented to suppoH the 70 per cent estimate was that already authorita-
 lively rejected by the American dele
 Gation, exclusion of a.; ships under
 construction from the calculation and
 inclusion by Japan of pre-dread-
 naughts over 20 years old
 While there. was no yC:e taken to
 day in the subcommittee of the ex-
 perts, British and American groups
 were in full accord that the Japan
 eSe proposal was not sound and that
 1t constituted a question of policy
 not of fact.
 For the American delegation. the
 situation was described authoritative ly as an agreement of the experts as
 to points of difference. These in clude minor questions reia;ng to Del ccntage of completion Of ships under construction, whether battleships oyer 20 years old can be- included Tn esJf
 mates of strength of modern navies
 and similar points. All of these. ir
 the American view, are minor because they are questions of fact.
 The major point of difference, the Japanese proposal to disregard ships under construction in calculating ra val strength. is viewed as a matter of policy and a suggestion that is not open to debate so far as the United States is concerned. Neither the American government nor the Amer ican people will consent, it was stat ed. to scrap 15 capital ships averag ing 90 per cent complete and or which more than, S330,000,OOO has been paid out, as the cquivalent o Jdpan's four new ships to be scrap ped.
 Situation Is Tangled
 On every other possible hasis of cal culation considered 53y the experts Japan could show not even the 6t Ter cent ratio proposed for her in the
 American plan. Application of the
 capital ship tonnage measurement tC fix the ratio itself is a wide conces ion to Japan. it is said.
 On the highest ratio, Japan could
 be allowed by the figures presented that include ships uaCer construction ger ratio was go per cent. and tC
 reach that she would be permitted tC include two old pre-dreadnaughts
 pore than 20 years o.d, while the United States would discard all ship: over 20 years old. Various tabula tions were gone over by the expert: and m every case, Japan ratio fel below 90 per cent. To meet this con
 ditiOn. the Japanese put forward thoil suggestion that only ships alloat bC counted in estimating naval strength since in that way alone, their est mate Of 70 per cent could be attain