The Cordova daily times., 1921-12-10
SATURDAY. DECEMBER 10, 1921
IF NOT, WHY NUT?

1h, conference for the limitation of anna mont~ is ou. In one respect, it already has revealed itself to bo more than a limitation conference. In this one respect, the word "disamamcnt" is not inappropriate.
 So bold, so ccar So bueurs~-H like, so free from rhetoric was the proposal offered on behalf of the United States by Secretary of State Charles F. Hughes, it disarmcd Euro pcan diplomacy the very first day of the con ference.
 As A. Maurice Low, correspondent of the London Morning Post, cablcd his paper:
 "When Mr. Hughes, as president of the conference on limitation of almmicnts an nounced the proposals that the United States was prepared to reduce the naval strength of the United States, along with Great Britain and Japan, he literally swept his audience to its feet. II was astounding, so amazing so utterly uudpomatc, according to the cnons of European diplomacy, that the pIcmipotrn- tiarcs sitting about the U-~hapcd table in the body of the hall, their secretaries and ad visers few feet behind, and parallel with them were no more startled than the occu- pants of the galleries, which included virtually t1o entire membership of both houses of Con- grcss. the Cabinet, the Supreme Court and those members of the Diplomatic Corps whose countries are not participants in the confer ence.'
 What il all will come to-naught, much orI cvorythng-rcmains for the future sttings of the conference to reveal. Ii is apparent now that the success of the gathering depends, more than upon anything csc upon the smart ness and strength of the American delegation. IT has got to he smarter and stronger thanI oF h., hn,1 iC
 Mr BaIfour, on behalf of his government, was first to accept the Hughes plan ''in spirit and in principle" The Japanese government, through Admiral Kato, did likewise. And for France and Italy. so also did M. Briand and Senator Shanzer.
 "Tn spirit and in principIo"-that means little On the face of it. it means nothing. What it does mean ought soon to be revealed. Mr Hughes has been perfectly frank and coarI and there can be no misunderstanding of him. The frankncss and clcarnrSS of Nr. BaIfourI and the other Old World delegates perhaps must wait upon their recovery from the sur prise Mr. Hughes sprang upon them.
 However, the British delegation iS known now to he not wholly in accord with the Hughes plan in two important details. The submarine tonnage provided by Mr. Hughes is held to be too large. The tcn-yrar naval holiday provision for replacement is looked upon by Mir. Bafour and his colleagues as too drastic. Mr. Hughes answer to this is vet to be heard. But, until it is heard, the reply of the British liberal press would seem to be adequate The Westminster Gazette, for example, says, in terms stronger than neccs- sary, probably, that Mir. Balfour's position gives cause "for the very gravcst misgvings and disappointment. The reservation that a restricted program of battloship replacement be earned on from year to year in order to save the armament works from going to rot would be direct attack upon the essential principle of the American scheme. The best hope for the world is that this specialized plant will go to rot and that at the end of decade it may seem worth nobody's while to put it in order again. In any case, even if we should have to put it in order Great