The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1921-12-01

disproportion of the sacrifices in ships
and money the United states has Of
fered to undertake
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30.-Experts
of the '.big three" naval powers agreed
today 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 back
to their respective delegations to tho
arms conference. Upon its solution
hangs the fundamental principle Of the
American naval limitation proposal,
the "5-5-S" capital ship ratio.
The experts were substantially in
agreement as 80 the accuracy>~of esti-
mates of naval strength of each power
originally submitted by the American
conference group if the American plan
of including all ships actually under
construction in arriving at the ratio
was followed
The Japanese experts, however, in
sisted to the last that this was not the
proper basis of calculation, proposing
instead to disregard all ships now
building by either power in determin-
ing relative naval strength.
The plenary delegates Of the two
powers will 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 American
delegates to insist upon the "5-5-3"
ratio and inclusion of ships building
in any estimate of naval strength was
reiterated tonight of authority. The
purpose of the japanese delegation was
not disclosed.
Since no call for an executive ses-
sion Of the conference delegates or for
further meetings of the experts was
issued, it was assumed that an at
tempt to settle the point by informal
interchanges between the American
and japanese delegates themselves was
in progress and might last several
days.
There was a strong feeling in Amer
lean and British circles that Japanese
ultimately would accept the American
method Of calculation and the "5-5-3"
ratio. not insisting upon a "10-10-7'
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 a 70 per cent status
on the basis of figures they have been
able to present. There was expecta-
lions, however, that to any offer by
the Japanese group to accept the
"5-5-3" ratio would be coupled a con-
dition as to an agreement on naval
bases in the Pacific. That question
has not been injected into the confer
ence as yet in any form.
AS a matter of fact, the sub-com-
mittee of naval experts quit where
they started, at the capital ship ratio.
1t is known that in two weeks of tech
nicaI discussion they have not touched
upon any other point involved in the
American plan of limitation. All such
items as the ten year holiday, subma-
rines, proportional allotments of tom
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 arm
ament still stands tonight, so far as
it's major objective, the naval agree
ment, goes, at that point.
In japanese circles urgent pleas to
support the Japanese claim for 10
per cent ratio were put forward, but
they were based almost wholly on
questions of national security and not
upon claims as to present strength OF
the two nayies. The only compilation
of figures presented to support the 20
per. cent estimate was that already au-
rejected by the American
delegation exclusion of all ships I'M
der construction from the calculation
and inclusion by Japan of pre-dread-
naughts more than twenty years old.
While there was vote taken today
in the subcommittee of experts, the
British and American groups were in
full accord that the Japanese proposal
was not sound and that it constituted
a question of policy, not Of facts. 1t
was this situation that ended the ex-
perts' deliberations, for they We're
with only execution of faces,
not with the shaping of policies. The
alone may formulate these
and the matter went back to them.
For the American delegation the
situation was described authoritatively
as an agreement of the experts as 20
points of difference. These include
minor questions relating to percentage
Of completion of ships under construc-
ton, whether battleships over twenty
years old can be included in estimates
of strength Of modern navies and sim
liar points. All of these, in the Ameri-
can 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 disre-
gard ships under construction in cal
naval strength, is viewed as
4 matter of policy and a suggestion
that is not open TO debate so far as
he United States is concerned. Nei-
her the American government nor the
American people viii consent. it was
stated authoritatively. to scrap fifteen |