The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1921-12-17
SHOCK To POWERS
Request Would Nullify
Original Plan, Is Bal
fOur's Protest.
HUGHES OPPOSES
ATTITUDE OF PARIS
British Reaffirm Stand on
Move. to Outlaw Sub
marine Craft.

"
France has usurped Japsn's post
tion as the apparent stumbling
block Of the naval armament con-
ference.
Her delegation yesterday success
fully checked progress in the newly
formed committee OF fifteen. They
fatty demanded that her allotment
Of capital ships be fixed with .
total tonnage OF $4,000. This
would compare with the $4,000
tons accepted by Japan.
This position shocked the other
delegates. They had taken the dec
laration OF Premier BRAND and
other members Of the Fresch dele
cation at its face value. when they
stated early in the conference that
all France desired was navy
strong enough to guard her coastal
lines.
Now, with the japanese opposi-
ton smoothed away. and everything
pointing 70 speedy settlement OF
the naval ratio proposition. to have
a demand made by a major power
for naval strength which would. II
agreed TO, disrupt the agreement
and result in retaining by all pow
ers Of all existing warships. was =
distinctly unpleasant surprise. From
II o'clock TO 1-s5 YESTERDAY the
committee discussed the French d.
mand without result. and again
heard Arthur J. Balfour for the
British, declare that the submarine
was not a weapon suited either Tor
offensive or defensive warfare. and
that the world would acclaim az
tion by the conference in outlaw
ing il.
>nrrault Launches Surprise.
When the committee on naval
armament met. VI. SarrauIt. now
chairman Of the French conference
delegation. took the floor and. after
reviewing the naval position OF
France, explaining that during the
war she was compelled 10 Suburd.-
nate her navy because u the ne,as-
sity Of maintaining every possible
soldier in the field. said that nov,
II was necessary Tor her to mol
ernizC in every way lie said Ger
tain capital ships now IN commIs-
sion under the French flag have
"utiNed their usefulness and must
be replaced. Then. in sitting down
he Launched a veritable hunlbsbe1r
by announcing that in the opfu-g-
Of tho French naval experts. fu1l.-
""n"urred IN by tho French Cow
cr1mcUt. the capital ship strength
OF their navy should Doe fixed 1t
3so 600 tons
Their" -was shocked silence in
N" committee. Then BalTuur de-
clared that To- consider slriousIy al.
demand ~ tho French de,eratf.r
would be To- assume that the orig
nal plan of naval disarmament. out
lined in calling tho conference.
was nu!llf"d. To grant Franc
the right L" construct large
number of new modern p-a-Ir.-
superdreadnau=h'S and battl. cruts-
'rS would defeat entirely tla
HUGHES plan. 1Ig declared. U.r.r
extreme emphasis. thar even 60
consider seriously th. French do
mand would mean that ther. mrsr
he taken up complete revision 81
tho numerical allotment of oarfar
ships assigned to Great britain. r,..
United states and Japan They
would. Of course. adhere 10 the g.
5-3 plan which WAS accepted b,-
tween themselves a. a Drop.r h.SFs
Hughes Defends Plan.
In the opinion OF Mr Ralfour
which opinion was fully iudu~sed O.,
the British naval experts prc,5nt.
acceptance OF the French PROPOSE
simply would moan that the Ri
Three powers viii be compelled o.
retain in commission all Of tr-
units now built and building. 10
gether with the two vessels OF IN.
Royal SoveroiCn type that were au-
thorized for EnE9nd in Yesterdays
agreement Mr.. Rslfour's criticism
was direct and forcelful althouEh
couched in the friendliest of lang
uaEe. He argued that the nriCinal
plan proposed ~ tho American ana
British experts. that the fual ratio
might BE- about 5-5-3-c-2. w.8
a fair one
Mr. Balfour was followed BY Sec.
retary OF State Hughes. The chair
man did not hesitate to clearly de-
fine the position OF the American
delegation. lie is understood -
have stressed that the ratio. arrived
at by the big Three" dealing wiki
the three leading powers. was thi
one that ought TO be applied still
further as a yardstick 10 the navirs :
Of the remaining members of tls
Big Five"
Friendly hut F;na'.
Mr.. Hughes. like Mr.. Iialfour. 1t
II be known that iu his opinion
granting OF any such ratio -
France was demanding absolutely
nullihed the progress already made
by the three delegations. u was
explained that. so FAR as the Ameri-
can delegation was concerned. there
could be no acceptance OF tho
French viewpoint. To do so would
mean that there would be neither
progress in naval disarmament nnr
on the proposed naval holiday A.
in the case Of Mr Ealfour the
statements OF Mr.. Hughes were
strong and clear as wcll as ,.-
trcmelv frank. although there vs.
no unwarrantc1 criticism or ths
French attitude. The discussion
was friendly il tone and mannrr.
but there was a very distinct 7ir
OF fnality in the con >lusioas drawn
by both Mr.. Hughes and the previ-
Gus speaker.