Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1921-12-01
NAVAL EXPERTS
FAIL To AGREE
ON SHIP RATIO
Give Task Up and Turn
Problem Back to Big
Three for Discussion.
Japan Insists American
Plan of Calculation Is
Not Fair to Her.

Washington. Nov. 30.-fBy The As
sociated Press)-Experts of the big
three naval powers agreed Wednes-
| day that they could not reach an ac-
cord 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 hack
! to their respective delegations, to the
arms conference. Upon its solution
| hangs the fundamental principle of the
| the five -five-th capital ship ratio"
Japan Objects
The experts were substantially in
agreement as to the accuracy of es-
Inmates of naval strength OF each pow
er originally submitted by the Ameri-
! can conference group If the American
plan of including all ships actually un-
| der construction, IN arriving at the
ratio was followed. The Japanes ex-
| perts, however, insisted to the last
that this was not the proper basis of
calculation. proposing instead to disre-
gard all ships now building by either
| power in determining relative naval
strength.
The plenary delegates of the two
powers viii continue the discussion
from this point, Illuminated by such
light as the studies of the experts have
been able TO throw on the technical
questions involved.
Firm determination of the Ameri-
can delegation to insist upon the five
five-three ratio and inclusion of ships
building in any estimate of naval
night ON authority. The purpose or
the japanese delegation was not dis
closed.
sion of the conference delegates or for
further meetings of the experts was
issued it was assumed that an attempt
to settle the point by Internal inter
changes between the American and
Japanese delegates themselves was in
progress and might last several days.
No Sound Claim.
There was strong feeling in Ameri-
can and British circles that Japan ulti-
mateiy would accept the American
method of calculation and the five
five three ratio,' not insisting upon
''ten-tens seven" ratio instead. This
was based on the definite conclusion
of the British and American experts
that the Japanese naval officers had
been unable to show any sound claim
to Il 20 per cent status on the basis of
figures they have been able to pre-
sent. There was expectation, however.
that to any offer by the japanese
ratio" would be coupled 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 matter of fact, the sub-co
mittee of naval experts quit where
they started, at the capital ship ratio.
1t is known that in two weeks of tech
nical discussion. they have not touched
upon any other point involved in the
American plan of limitation. All such
items as the 1o-year holiday, subma-
rines, proportional allotments OF ton
mage in auxiliary craft of various kinds
and the like were deferred until the
capital ship ratio problem was solved.
The conference of limitation Of arma-
ments still stands tonight, 50 far as
its major objsct;se-the naval agree
ment-goes, at tnat point.
In Japanese circles urgent pleas to
support the japanese claim for 70
per cent ratio were put forward, but
they We're based almost wholly on
questions of national security and not
upon claims as to present strength Of
the two navies.
England Agrees With U. S.
While there was no vote taken in
the subcommittee Of the experts, the
British and American groups were in
full accord that the Japanese proposal
was not sound and that it constituted
IA question Of policy, not Of fact.
For the American delegation, the
situation was described authoritatively
as an agreement Of the experts as to
points Of difference. These include
minor questions relating to the per-
centage Of completion OF ships under
construction, whether battleships over
20 years old can be included in esti
mates of strength of modern 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, how
ever, the. Japanese proposal TO dis
regard ships under construction In cal
culating naval strength, is viewed as 9
matter of policy and suggestion that
in not open to debate so far as the
United States is concerned. Neither
the American government nor the
American people will consent, it was
stated. to scrap u capital ships aver
Il - -