The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1921-12-03
Experts Figuring
On Naval Strengths
Questions Raised by Japan
Prove Puzzling to Delegates

today that they CouiQ not TedCu diA
accord On the basis of calculation
to be used in measuring Japan S
existing relative naval strength.
They gave up the task and turned
the problem back to their respec-
tive delegations to the arms con-
ference. Upon its solution hangs
the fundamental principle OF the
American naval limitation propos-
al, the "5-5-3" capital ship ratio.
The experts were substantially
in agreement as to the accuracy OF
estimates Of naval strength of each
power originally submitted by the
American conference group If the
American plan of including all
ships actually under construction
in arriving at the ratio was fol-
lowed.
The japanese experts, however,
insisted to the last that this was
not the proper basis of calculation,
proposing instead to disregard all
ships now building by either power
in determining relative naval
strength.
The plenary delegates of the two
powers will continue the discussion
from this point, illuminated by
such light as the studies Of the ex-
perts have been able to throw on
the technical questions involved.
Firm determination of h e
American delegation to insist upon
the 5-5-3 ratio and inclusion Of
ships building in any estimate of
naval stren 9Th was reiterated to-
night on authority. The purpose of
the japanese delegation was not
disclosed.
Since no call for an executive
session of the conference delegates
Or for further meetings of the ex-
perts was issued, it was assumed
that an attempt to settle the point
by informal interchanges between
the American and japanese dele
gates themselves was in progress
and might last several days.
There was strong feeling in
American and British circles that
Japan ultimately would accept the
American method of calculation
and the "5-5-3" ratio not insisting
upon a "1O-10-7" ratio instead.
This was based on the definite con-
clusion Of the British and Ameri-
can experts that the Japanese ma
val officers had been unable to
show any sound claim to q 70 per
cent. status on, the. basis Of figures
they have been able to present.
There was expectation, however,
| that to any offer by the japanese
group to accept the ''5-5-3' ratio
would be coupled a condition as to
an agreement on naval bases in
the Pacific That question has not
been injected into the conference
as YET in any form.
As a matter Of fact. the sub
committee of naval experts quit
where they started at the capital
ship ratio. 1t is known that in
| two weeks OF technical discussion
they have not touched upon any
other point involved in the Amer
lean plan Of limitation. All such
items as the ten year holiday, sub
marines, proportional allotment Of
tonnage in auxiliary craft Of va
rious kinds and the like, were de-
ferred until the capital ship ratio
problem was solved. The confer
ence of limitation of armament still
stands tonight, so far as its major
objective, the naval agreement,
goes at that point.
In japanese circles urgent pleas
to support the Japanese claim for
! a 70 per cent. ratio were put for
| ward, but they were based almost
wholly on questions Of national Sc
curity and not upon claims as to
present strength Of the two navies.
The only compilation of figures
presented to support the 70 per
cent. estimate was that already au-
| thoritatively rejected by the Amer
/ lean delegation-exclusion Of all
| ships under construction from the
calculation and inclusion by ia
pan Of predreadnoughts more than
20 years old.
! While there was no vote taken
! today in the subcommittee OF eX-
perts the British and American
groups were in full accord that the
Japanese proposal was not sound
and that it constituted a question
! Of policy and not Of fact. It was
this situation that ended the ex-
perts' deliberations, for they were
charged only with examination Of
facts, not with the shaping of poll
cies. The delegations alone may
formulate these and the matter
went back to them.
For the American delegation the
situation was described as an
agreement OF experts as to points
Of difference. These included mi
nor questions relating to percen-
/ tage Of completion Of ships under
construction, whether battleships
over 20 years old can be included
/ III eSllIlidteS Oi StIellSlIl VI H4Ouell II
| navies and similar points. All OF
| these in the American view are
minor because they are questions
Of fact and can be resolved beyond
disagreement.
The major point Of difference,
however, the Japanese proposal to
disregard ships under construction
/ in the calculation Of naval strength,
is viewed as a matter Of policy and
a suggestion that is not open to