New-York tribune., 1921-12-29

orders. OF my government" adding that
certain delegations" had expressed
disappointment that France could not
make sacrifices similar to those she
made in capital ships as to other
classes of vessels.
a., ALLOW me to say,' he continued,
chat this disappointment, if it really
exists, will call forth similar feeling
IN my own country when it is learned
there how the amount of tonnage al
lotted to France has been authorita-
tlvely determined without taking any
account of her manifest needs and of
the absolute necessities of her defense.
for the security and safe guarding Of
which no country is justified in trust
ing to the coed Offices of it's neigh
bors."
Sarraut Defends Stand
Relterating that France had not en-.
deavored TO measure her naval needs
by what other naval powers were build
ing, M. Sarraut said:
"Great Britain with her 525. 900 TONS
OF capital ships will possess a feet Of
great vessels stronger than the cor
responding fleets of France and italy
put together. SO be it; we ourselves
do not take offense. We are not the
least in the world haunted by this
eventuaity, no more than we are ap-
prehenslve of the fact that the fleets
of the other friendly nations, the
United States and Japan, will be CON
siderably increased in comparison with
our fleet.
"Why then, they say. is submarine
fleet such as is demanded by Fralfce
a necessity for her? Do we bubble
over the needs of others? Do we call
into question their possible intentions :?
Do we suspect them? Assuredlv we
shall not do So"
M Sarraut said the theory that
"there is an inevitable and necessary
correlation between what we are
obliged to do and what our neighbors
would then deem themselves obliged to
do" could not be asserted without his
asserting the contrary" He added
also that there was "logcal correla-
ton" between capital ships and sub
marine tonnages.
Guided by Our Needs
"That is an abstract rule which you
thought you ought 20 lay down here"
he continued "But we have shown
that we could not recognize it. We are
guided by our needs. duly stated,
proved, legitimized 1t is this rule,
and no other thought, which dominates
tion.''
1t was in his rejoinder to this speech
of M. Sarraut that Mr.. Balfour sought
to show the "menace" Great Britain
saw in the French submarine program.
At the conclusion Of his remarks he
said he regretted having been "com-
PEELED to insist upon an aspect of the
question which he gladly would have
left undealt with"
Mr.. Balfour added that he did not
yield to M. Sarraut "in his conviction
his own country and their great ally
across the Channel would remain un-
shaken through all the changes which
time might bring" He then turned the
discussion to the American proposal to
limit the size and armament of auXil-
iary ships.
For the japanese delegation, Mr..
Hanihara said there was no Essential
objection" to the limitation of caliber
of guns on light cruisers, but wished
the opinion of Admiral Baron Kato,
who was not present, and the discus
sion of this point went over.
Balfour Favors 1t
After Mr. Root had read his sub
marine resolution Mr.. Balfour ex-
pressed warm sympathy both with the
substance of the resolutions and their
FORM Senator Schanzer also ex
pressed sympathy" for the Root pro-
posals, but deferred detailed consdera-
tion pending distribution of the resolu-
tion for study by the committee mem
bers. M. Sarraut, for the French group,
ard Mr.. Hanihara, for the Japanese,
took the same view and the discussion
was then directed by Mr.. Hughes to the
subject of aircraft carriers.
An amended proposal for the Amer
lean delegation, proposing to limit the
size of aircraft carriers to 27 900 tons.
was presented, coupled with the sup
gestion that their armament be limited
to guns not exceeding eight-inch cali
ber Under the original American
ratio suggestion, Mr.. Hughes said, the
United States and Great Britain would
be allowed $4,000 tons each in carriers.
Japan $4,000 tons, France $4,000 tons
and Italy $4,000 tons.
Lord Lee, for the British delegation.
requested deferment of the aircraft
carrier item until tomorrow for exam
ination of technical question involved
and suggested instead a resolution pro-
vlding that no warship shall carry a
gun OF greater caliber than Is inches.
which was accepted by the committee
unanimously.
In conclusion Chairman Hughes said
that the capital ship question appeared
to be one IN which the committee was
In complete accord except as to the ra-
placement program, and the comn,;ttas
instructed its naval experts to nra-
pare replacement chart for later con