Norwich bulletin., 1921-12-21

navy" his message added. pointing out that if present American and British building programs. proposed to be aban- doned. were carried out. each nation would have a naval preponderance of more than to l over France, very shortly
 And France would not be in a posi- ton to better herself. much less by any possible endeavor. to obtain such 6 rel ative strength as has been suggested Mir. Hughes added.
 The French delegation was understood 70 be in receipt tonight of detailed in- structions as 10 the amount Of auxiliarv naval tonnage. including submarines. de- sired under an agreement to accent i75.- ooo tons as her proportion of capital ships. NIT. Hughes message discioses that it would be possible for France. un- der that capital ship limitation, to build two new S5,oOo ton post-Jutland battle ships II she so desired There has beer no definite indication. however, of what submarine tonnage she sought or uigh. obtain.
 Roughly. the submarine tonnage buus and building. now possessed by each of the hve powers is as follows:
 United States. s5.000 tons: Great Brit am Sz,OOO tons; France. z2.o00 tons. Japan 52,Ooo tons: Italy 22.0oo tons.
 The maximum of the American ton-! mage apparently was taken in the Are-z ican original three-power proposal- vii, hVe thousand tons of submarines am thorized to be abandoned. Taking e0 VVo as the American allotment. the Hughes plan would give Great Britain, same and Japan 54, 900 tons or a sixty Der cent. ratio.
 The French 175.0o0 ton capital shin tonnage would mean a ratio of about l.el compared to the American sn6
 British five and the Japanese three. rf that ratio were applied 10 subuarinef France would have now nearly ten thous sand tons more than her proportion srf Japan more than twenty thousand toni
 less.
 From what direction it Is planned .e
 attack the submarine tonnage probler1
 should the conference fail to agree as k
 expected: to abolishment of submarines.
 IS not known. There are tns;catiorr
 however. that the American group wi, be prepared with definite suggestion 7 , both as 10 submarines and each other auxiliary craft element of the reduction plan when an appropriate moment for presentation comes. Views of each of
 the other four powers on these points ara understood to be in process of deveion- ment informally by the American dele- , eaNon TOT the purpose of such sugges- tions.
 So far as the British desire 10 abolis, or at least closely curb submarine ac. . tivities goes. it has been said ofaciafIy for the British delegation that agree
 ment to the capital ship 'five-hre-three-
 ratlo, the ten-year naval holiday and
 the retained tonnage elements of the h Amercian program was in no sense con. ! ditional The British intend. 1t Is un. s oerstood. to fight the submarine Issue il out on its merits and to regard it as in. ' volved only with the question of anti.
 submarine craft tonnage.
 The lines of the contest are not as ve, . clear. but an intimation came iron = Dutch circles tonight that while m,
 Netherlands government was not con. cerned immediately in the naval nu1ita. ;. ton conference, 1t was interested in th, e submarine question and would opvosi n any attempt on the part of the Washing i ton conference to set a world policy o.
 submarine abolishment.