The New York herald., 1921-12-18

compelled to seek authority for equal
privileges with the French.
Italian Reluctance.
In doing so they frankly admit they
do not want to invest the staggering
sum involved in the construction of
fleet of capital ships to equal in num-
ber and tonnage those demanded by
France. The naval needs of Italy run
to auxiliary craft, including subma-
rines, rather than to major types.
The italian delegates appear to be
perfectly willing to accept the naval
ratio allotted to them under the
Hughes plan, and they have not yet
submitted proposals for privileges
even remotely approaching those
which France so dramatically pro-
| jected into the discussion Of sea arma-
ments yesterday. The Italians, in COM
mon with delegates of other countries,
interpret the French move as directed
solely against Great Britain and trace
able entirely to differences in policies
regarding the German and Silesian
problems. The italian, American and
| Japanese delegates believe the French
claims will be adjusted to fit into the
naval mosaic, which is practically
completed, barring, Of course, the
| French-Italian plans.
| The American attitude toward the
| whole naval structure awaiting finish
| ing touches is described by one of the
| delegates to be "as clear as sunshine
| and is not favorable to the French
claims. Yet no move will be made by
| the representatives of this Govern
ment to dissent openly from the
| French plans until its good offices are
| invoked.
The spokesman for the American
| delegation said tonight that while
| it is ardently hoped that an agree
ment can be reached, the problem is
one for the French Government to
solve, and does not call for any action
on our part
The French delegates have made il
perfectly clear that any move made
by them will be predicated on the as
sumption of the sympathy of the
American delegates. The French feel
| ing toward the British is naturally
| far less amicable than the American
and other delegates in the conference
desire. NJ. Jusserand and NJ. Sarraut
| the only two of the four French dele
| gates remaining in the conference
| evince no open resentment toward
| their British associates.
Mr.. Balfour, Lord Lee and Sir Auck-
| land Geddes, the British representa-
tives. preserve equal reticence in dis
cussing the French request, but the
advisers and unofficial partisans of
both countries are not restricted by
! the same ethical considerations that
apply to their delegate representa-
tives. A reflection of the British view
of the French naval proposition was
that it was conceived by NJ. BRAND
before his departure from Washing
ton three weeks ago and turned over
to NJ. Sarraut with instructions to
project it into the ornaments sltua-
ton as soon as the Anglo-American-
Japanese conference over capital
ships had resulted in an agreement.
In supporting this view British COM
mentators assert their French COL
leagues resented their exclusion from
the conferences of Mr.. Hughes with
Mr.. Balfour and Baron Kato regard
ing ratios OF capital sea units upon
which the entire naval program was
constructed.
An impartial American view does
not wholly coincide with British opin-
ion in this respect. Mindful of the