New-York tribune., 1921-11-27

=
ence has not yet come, we
can see certain things clearly now. the
hrst of which is that. the nr.ct,ca,
scnieSement of this gathering will be
eonnprehended exclusively in reduc.
ton of naval ornaments.
The primary question that had to be
answered when the conference opened
was that of scope and purpose. Re-
fore Mr.. Hughes spoke on Saturday
November IL, the conference at Wash.
ington occupied in the minds Of the
world position as interesting and
significant as did the Paris conference
three years ago. Was 1T the purpose
OF Mr. Hughes to take up the work as
1t had fallen from the hands df the
Farls statesmen? We're we going back
TO the league, back to the European
problems? At least many voices clam
ored for such course.
On the other side was raised mn
equally insistent question: Were we. to
put our influence, our force behind a
project to reorganize the Far East. to
restrain Japanese ambition and aid in
the restoration of Chinese independ-
ence:
MIR. Hughes in his opening speech
avoided both questions. He made no
reference to Europe. He dismissed the
Far East with that scant mention which
henceforth robbed it of real signif-
canoe. On one subject and one alone
Mr. Hughes consolidated all his energy.
He did not even undertake to disarm
the world. He specifically, definitely,
dramatically sought to limit then sea
power of the three great naval nations
of the planet. That was all.
Here, then, since. Mr.. Hughes de-
llberately chose to make it so, was the
sole objective of the Washington con-
ference. No one can mistake this fact,
sven though it's Importance may be ex-
aggerated or improperly minimized
For better or for worse Mr. Hughes
decided we should talk ships, and ships
will be the subject alike of the con-
ference and of the tangible agreements
that emerge.
United States Gives Up
Supremacy on High Seas
Now, one has to appreciate in .esti-
mating the situation exactly the
problem to be faced. The United States
has undertaken to give up, if not actual
supremacy on the high seas, the exer-
else of that power indisputably hers,
which would have made her in
short space of years beyond challenge
on the Eastern and Western oceans.
We have given up that power, poten-
tial, if not actual, without compensa-
tion. Did we desire compensation
That question remains to be debated
hereafter. In SUBSTANCE we have said
to Great Britain, still the greatest sea
power, but by consequence of the ex-
tent and expense of the last war, un-
able to retain that position in compe-
tition with us: Eve are willing to con-
cede you temporary superiority and
permanent equality, provided you will
by ten-year holiday" The British
have accepted the proposal. Not only
were they bound to accept it, but it
represents for them an unmfstakable
victory in that it. saves them from
losing race. :.
We have said to Japan: "Accept our
standards Of relative strength on the
high seas" and substantially the jap
anese will accept our standards be-
cause for them sea power is defensive
and not offensive, and the more our
fleets are reduced and the more British
fleets are reduced the safer Japan is
not alone from attack by our feet or
the British fleet, but also from chal-
lenge as she applies her policy on the
Asiatic continent. Thus Japan, too,
has won victory in the naval dis
cussion.
Now, what Of the United States? We
fundamentally have agreed to resign
supremacy upon the seas Of the world
at time when no nation and no two
nations could challenge US had we
chosen to adopt tho old British ratio
of building against the two naval
powers nearest to US. But in resigning
this power no one can mistake the
fact that Mr.. Hughes has followed the
wishes Of his fellow countrymen. We
had no desire as people to dominate
The high seas at the risk Of eventual
conflict and at the price Of enormously
expanding naval budgets. We have
given up something we didn't want,
speaking for the mass Of the American
people.
Existence Of Armsments
Is Not Cause for Wars
Now, the first practical question that
must be asked is whether the limita-
ton Of naval ornaments represents
gain for the peace Of the world. AS
have pointed out often enough in
preceding articles, the question OF
armamcnts has precious little to do
with the causes of war. 1t is an Amer
ican dolrs;on that tho existence OF
~. <s1<~< nf