New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1922-04-12
Warns Reduction Below
Ratio Agreement Would
Impair Prestige and
Jeopardize Security
Likely to Prove
Costly Experiment
Accepts Experts Figures; {;
Enters Fight Against
Eight . Battleship Plan


WASHINGTON, April 11.-Secretary
OF State Hughes stepped directly into
the House fight on the size of the navy
to-day and in vigorously worded let
ter to Representative Rogers, of Mas
saohusetts, ranking Republican mem
Der of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
declared that to cut under the naval
ratio agreement itself would be likely
to prove an expensive experiment" ;"
The navy appropriation bill, with its
provisions for only $1,000 enlisted mon,
jeopardizes the entire international
agreement so far as this country is
concerned. the Secretary asserted.
What was the purpose Of the con-
ference If 1t was deemed to be q Wise
policy to cut the navy irrespective Of
an agreement with the other powers 2"
Mr.. Hughes asked "1t would be truly
extraordinary and manifest reflection
upon the work of the conference" he
added, later on, "if the navy of the
United States we're reduced below the
standard thus established.'
Warns Of Jeopardizing Security
In still another paragraph of the let
ter Secretary Hughes said: "To 81 er
that relation would be a very ser q
matter for the United States, both I'M
pairing its prestige and putting its Sc
curity in jeopardy" The communica
tion was in reply to a letter from Rep
resentative Rogers asking the Secre-
tary for his opinion on the proposed
reduction because of his relation to
the conference and negotiation of the
treaty fixing the limitations for capital
ship tonnage.
When the Hughes letter was read
into "The Congressional Record" this
afternoon it was promptly "challenged'
by several members, led by Minority
Floor Leader Garrett, of Tennessee
who declared he docs not feel bound
to subscribe to the doctrine set down
In it."
"The Congress of the United States
is only bound not to go above the
5-5-3 ratio" said Mr.. Garrett. "We
are not bound legally or morally not
to go below the mark set in the agree
ment."
Mr.. Hughes's Letter
Mr.. Hughes's letter follows:
Il have received your letter request
Ing my opinion as to the proposed re-
duction from the present enlisted per-
sonnel of the United States Navy to
$1,000 enlisted men. You state that
you write to me because of nv relation
to the recent Conference on the Limi-
tation of Armament and to the negotia
ttion Of the naval treaty which fixes
limitations for capital ship tonnage
with respect to the United States,
Great Britain and Japan in the ratio
of 5-5-3.
Under this treaty the United States
is allowed now to retain eighteen capi-
tai ships. You say that you are ad-
vised by. the Navy Department that the
proposed reduction in personnel will
mean that not exceeding twelve capi-
tai ships can be kept in commission.
AS to this am not qualified to express
an expert opinion, but ! have ques-
toned the naval experts with whom the
American delegates consulted during
the recent conference, and whom we
found both accurate and in svmpa thy
with the principle of limitation by
agreement. and | am advised that the
proposed number of enlisted men is far
below the number required to maintain
our navy upon the basis contemplated
by the treaty. Accepting this state
ment of fact, the only question would
seem to be whether our navy should be
reduced below the treaty standard by
the provision Of personnel inadequate
to maintain it.
Should Maintain Treaty Standard
To this question l think there can
be but one answer. strongly believe
that it would be most injurious to the
interests of the United States not to
maintain fully the standard of the
treaty.
From whatever point of view it is
considered the question of appropriate
naval strength is a relative one 1t
was recognized in calling the recent
conference that the only sound basis
for effecting a reduction in naval arm
ament was through an agreement
among the naval powers which would
fix suitable limitations for their re-
spective navies in relation to each
other. In the invitation to the confer
ence it was said that there seemed to
be no ground to expect the hating of
the increasing outlays for naval arma-
ment, unless the powers most largely
concerned find a satisfactory basis for
an agreement to effect their limita-
ton Apparently this was the view
of Congress when, in the naval appro-
nriation hill annroved Univ 70 1921