New-York tribune., 1921-12-29
France w armed
Britain Thinks
Policy a Threat
tcontlnued from page one,

but the limitation of auxiliary ships to
10000 tons displacement was not af-
firmed, the point going over for con-
sideration tomorrow
In presenting the French govern.
ment's naval program M. Sarraut sait
the Cabinet and the supreme counci
of national defense in Paris had ere
solved to accept the reduction to 175,
060 tons" of capital ships proposed
tions "of application" Of this agree
ment would be easy of settlement, he
said, through consideration of such
qualifications Gas it may be useful to
introduce" in connection with the naval
holiday enabling powers to lay down
in 1927 ships to relace those which
have reached their twentieth year OF
( existence.
ut will likewise be easy to settle
the question still outstanding" he said
"of the duration of the agreement as
to limitation of capital ship tonnage
In presenting the program of 10000
of auxiliary craft for France M. Sar-
raut said the delegation "has been in
structed to consent to no concession
on the above figures" s
"To sum up" NJ Sarraut continued,
"France accepts as regards capital
ships the sacrifices which she must
face in order to meet the views of the
conference and which represent an i'm
/ portant reduction of her normal sea
power. She limits the program of the
future constitution of her fleet to
$4,000 tons for auxiliary craft and to
| 10000 tons for submarines"
Sooro+o,.v Hrnhoc x,ov,1x, In
was gratifed at French acceptance of
the capital ship tonnage limitation, as
capital ships were tho chief weapon of
ofense, and if the conference succeed
ed, as it seemed evident it would, in
reducing "in fairly satisfactory man
ner" armaments represented in capital
ships, that alone would aid ain estab-
fishing better basis of lasting peace"
Expressing his disappointment with
the French statement as to submarines,
Mr.. Hughes said that if these vessels
were to be available for defensive pur-
poses in connection with fleet move
ments "they should bear some definite
proportion to the fighting fleets" The
French suggestion of 10000 tons son
any basis of practicable ratio" he
added, Moirld invoke uthe. assumption
that Great Britain and the United
States increase their! submarine ton
mage proportionately with the French
This could hardly be called limi-
tation or reduction," he continued.
'Furthefmore, if a large number of
submarines were to be provided, then
cruisers and destroyers, the natural
enemy of submarines, would have to be
provided in numbers adequate to deal
with the situation created by large
submarine fleet"
Mr.. Hurhps seid ~ x,,,e n ~or;or.
question whether anything could be
accomplished in the way of limiting
tonnage of submarines and auxiliary
craft. He added that he "did not desire
at this time and in view of the exist
ing situation to discuss details OF the
tonnage limitations France had pro
posed for herself, but that he wished
to say that an agreement for axpan-
sion Of armament was not under con-
sideration."
"The conference" Mr.. Hughes re-
minded the committee, "was called to
consider the lin tation of armament. y
The Secretary added that he did not
wish "in any way to detract rom the
Importance of the definite acceptance
by. France of the program for capital
ships" in what he had said as to sub
marines.
Mr.. Balfour, who followed Mr..
Hughes, said the French statement had
profoundly disappointed" him, al
though he rejoiced in French accept
ance Of the capital ship ratio and
agreed that if nothing else was done
as to naval disarmament "the scheme
already in sight with regard to the linn
itation of capital ships did immensely
relieve the burden of armament upon
an overburdened world"
Mr.. Balfour said he did not regard
the French action as to capital ships
as an "overwhelming sacrifice" as the
to mean an increase in relative
strength for her he did not be-
grudge. The French did propose. he
added, to increase the number of sub
marines threefold," and he pointed ont
that while Frances 10000 tons in sinh
mersibles would equal the fleets of
Great Britain and the United States in
size, they would represent to the ex-
tent OF $4,000 tons submarines of q
newer type" than either other navy
possessed. This made it certain. he
sad, that If France carried out her
submarine program her "submarines
would exceed those of any other power
in the world"
Coupled with the announcements that
the FRENCH government proposed also
an increase III auxiliary tonnape. M
Balfour said, at must be acknovi.
edged that this constituted somewhat
singular contribution to the labors of
conference called for diminution of
armament" He also pointed out that
the French proposed, even as to The
ten-ycar capital ship holiday. "to he
gin replacing ships in 1927" but added
that this, while it seemed to he 8
serious interference with the proposaI
1or ten years naval holiday" was
only small part of the anxiety and
disappointment which the French nro-
gram had created" in his mind.
. The British delegate declared II
was perfectly obvious that the pro-
posed 10000 tons of submarines wera
intended to destroy commerce.
They could not be intended for anv
other purpose" he said, adding:
THE whole of this CONTROVERSY will
again come up before public confer
e.nce,'. Tor which occasion he reserved
himself. 'eseiseu
Mr., Balfour said he must dwell ON
the erect the French declaration of
naVai policy must inevitably produce
upon British opinion"
It was perfectly clear" he said
shat II ut our very gates a feat az
so,ooo submarines 100000 tons of wh;ch
are TO he of newer type) are m he
constructed, no limitation Of anv l;nd
on auxliiary vessels capable Of iaai;nr
s With submarines could be admitted hv
the government which he renrasartsJ
Replying to Mr.. Balfcur. NJ Sar,.s,,.
said ne could not comment aon ~ ~