The New York herald., 1921-12-05
Three Tables of Naval Com
parisOns Presented to
Show Ratings.
DISCREPANCIES APPEAR
Japan's Experts Are Told
United States Could Not Dis
cuss Their Figures.


Press) ).--Examination Of memorandum
submitted by Japanese experts during
recent conferences with American Of
flcers on the naval ratio problem shows
that the Japanese seized upon the
existing strength" clause OF Secretary
Hughes's proposal as n basis for as
sorting claims to at least 20 per cent.
of American naval strength. The
Japanese proposition was presented in
three tables OF comparison. in none of
which was any allowance made for any
ship under construction on November
II except the Japad,se battleship
Mutsu, rated by the Japanese as a
completed ship and by the American
experts as SO per cent. complete.
According to any OF the three cal
culations the existing strength OF the
Japanese navy amounts to about 70
per cent. OF the American navy" the
Japanese communication said. "This
is especially so when the calculation is
made on the basis of superdread-
noughts, for there IL VIII be SO high
that It reaches to Ss per cent.
'It is, therefore. the firm conviction
OF the Japanese experts that Japan
should have at least 20 per cont. Of
navy, compared with Americas 100
per cent"
The American experts made no writ
ten reply. The Japanese experts were
orally informed that the United States
Ing strength of the two navies on the
basis of the Japanese construction. The
discussions between the experts ended
at this point.
First Table.
Table No. / submitted by the Japa-
nese experts set out comparison based
on pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts
OF each Power. It was as follows:
United States--Japanese classifi-
cation, S3 ships. 72S.3so tons. 100
per cent. American classification,
80 ships, 797.135 tons. 100 per cent
Japan-Japanese classification, 25
ships, 55o,250 tons, 76 per cent.
American classification, 20 ships.
54e,196 tons, 50 per cent
twenty years are eliminated In ac-
cordance with original proposal the
japanese percentage will be 6S per
cent
In explanation of this table the Japa-
nese attached a note saying:
"T-he calculation by the Japanese
naval experts is that, putting a fair
construction on the existing strength
in the proposal OF Mr.. Hughes. II is
proper to include pre-drcadnoughts
in the existing strength"
second Table.
Table No. compared naval strength
on the basis of dreadnoughts end super
dreadnoughts. II follows:
United States---Japanese ciassifi-
cation, 20 stips. 1850 tons, 100 per
cent. American classification. 1S
ships. 50O.65o tons, 100 per cent.
Japan--Japanese classification, i3
ships, $4,000 tons, 20 psr cent
American classification, IL ships,
s31,70o tons, 60 per cent.
In connection with table No. 2 The
Japanese memorandum said;
"Tne calculation OF tho Japanese
experts, according TO the opinion OF
the American experts, should exclude
the re-dreadnoughts."
Third Table.
Table No. dealt only with super
drcadnous1ts II showed no disagree
ment as to tonnage figures or number
of ships to be included. II follows:
United States. Japan.
~ ships. ~ chips.
ss3 600 tors. 313 300 tons.
100 per cent. s6 per cent.
This explanation was appended:
The calculation excluding all OF the
| i2-inch gun ships Is according TO tho
universal recognition among naval
experts OF all nations that such ships
no longer have the capacity to stand
ON the first line Of battle
Discrepancies IN tonnage figures be
tween American and Japa ESQ calcula'
tions as shown above were not traced
out by the Americans, ae none of the
tables came within the scope of possible
discussion under the plan as referred e
by exports for examination in detail.
rthey were taken as constituting th'
presentation OF new policy for the
basis of the naval limitation plan and