Evening star., 1921-12-19
DELEGATIONS IN RECESS
FOR STUDY OF PARIS MOVE
Continued from First Page.) }

was presented with the backing of
standing a belief prevalent In other
quarters that it was not.
Drawn up in Washington under the
supervision of Admiral de Bon. chief
French naval adviser, the 350,000-ton
plan appeared to many of the arms
delegates to be only a general staff
idea and not the matured program
Of the French government. That sup
position Is understood to have led to
the exchanges which took place be-
tween Ambassador Harvey and Pre-
mier BRAND. which itself followed an
effort by Secretary Hughes to get in
touch with the French premier direct
Confusion Over Ratio.
The French delegation appeared to
attach considerable significance. how
ever. to the reference of the dis
patches to submarines. and there was
a growing belief everywhere that
other considerations besides the capi-
tai ship question had entered into
the conference between the American
ambassador and the French premier.
Although never made public. the
American capital ship proposal for
France and Italy is known to have
been in the shape Of actual proposed
tonnage not reduced to the form OF
an expressed ratio. AS consequence
there was some confusion over to-
days unofficial dispatch from Paris
point of apparent divergence related
to Italy's strength. stated in the
Paris advices as fixed at a ratio Of
1853 as against 1T for France.
Equal Tonnage Plan.
As understood by the Italian dele
gates. at least. the plan proposed here
equal tonnage. and the Italians are
would have given France and Italy
understood to have accepted on that
basis. Furthermore. the ratio of the
French and Italian navies on that
schedule would be something less
than II as compared to the American
and British five. The tonnage allow
ances for the five powers thus would
be:
Great Britain, $4,000; United States.
$4,000: Japan. $4,000: France, 49,
900; Italy, 175,000.
Although Great Britain has already
indicated officially the desire of her
delegation to state publicly at plen-
ary session of the conference the Brit
ish desire that submarines be abol-
ished as naval weapons. even the Brit
ish, however, have little hope that
tho conference will take such action.
the fixing Of the relative tonnage Of
each power in underwater craft and
also the total amount of submarine
tonnage each power to be retained.
Original U. 9. Proposal.
Under the original proposal, the
Under the original American proposal.
the United States and Great Britain
would retain 10000 tons each in subma-
rines, Japan. $4,000 tons. and the other
two powers their proportionate tonnage
under the capital ship ratios finally
established for them. The British
have indicated, however, a purpose to
seek reduction Of as much as 30 per
cent in the retained submarine tom
mage of all powers. while the French
are understood to desire a very much
larger submarine tonnage than the
fleet ratio derived from present exist
ing ship tonnage of the French navy
would permit.
Conference officials anticipate ex-
tended debate in the committee Of
fifteen on the submarine tonnage al
lotment problem. They expect that
debate to begin Immediately after
French acceptance of the capital ship
tonnage suggestions Of the United
States has been communicated by the
French delegation.
Could Work Out Details.
Details of the capital ship matter. it
was said. probably could be worked
out quickly with authority provided
for both France and Italy to build
''post-Jutland" ships as replacement
for existing, but obsolete dread
naughts il they so desired.
1t is not anticipated that there will
be necessary any important revision
Of the ten-year naval holiday plan
otherwise than has already been made
in granting the British authority to
build two post-Jutland ships and ex-
tension Of similar authority for
France and Italy. Nor Is it believed
that the airplane carriers allotments
will cause difficulty. although Japan
has indicated a desire for more tom
mage under this heading than the
5-5-3 ratio plan would contemplate.
Other elements Of the naval plan as
to cruisers and destroyers and gum
boats and other like ships are regard.
ed merely as matters Of detail. It is
not believed that their adjustment for
incorporation in q flve-power treaty
Of limitation will take much time.