San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-04-03
A MYSTIFYING MISTAKE

One of the most embarrassing mis-
takes of modern American diplomacy
which has come to the attention OF the
public is that represented by Secretary
of State Hughes withdrawal OF his re-
cent remarks about British naval activi-
ty. Presumably the incident was highly
embarrassing to Mr.. Hughes, both per-
sonally and officially. and it cannot but
be regretted by the American people.
This country has been universally re-
gardcd as a sort Of international mentor
in matters pertaining to peace-promoting
treaties Perhaps its refusal to sign the
Versailles treaty reinforced its reputa-
ton for fair dealing even among intelli-
gent foreigners whose immediate inter-
ests would have been served by Ameri-
cas- entry into the League of Nations.
And certainly America assumed definite
leadership as result OF the Washing
ton naval conference.
Whether this incident may actually
impair the credibility OF the United
States government in the eyes OF other
peoples, nobody knows, of course. But
a good impression abroad should be Gre
ated by Secretary Hughes quick retrac-
ton of his remarks that were officially
declared by the British government to be
untrue. To Americans, however, the en-
tire affair is all the more regrettable be-
cause of the fact that the United States
navy seems to have undertaken the same
kind of activity which Mr. Hughes had
imputed to the British navy.
Apparently the remarks of the Ameri-
can secretary of state were not designed
as adverse criticism. The substance of
them was that gin mountings on some
of the British ships were being altered in
such way as to give the guns a longer
range. Irrespective of whether British
government officials construed this as
charge that their nation was v:olat-
ing that part Of the Washington pact
which forbids the adoption of new types
of guns or gun carriages on ships which
the signatory nations are. authorized to
maintain during the. life Of the treaty,
they announced that Mr.. Hughes had
been misinformed as. to facts--that in
reality the changes described had not
been and were not being made.
In the meantime, it appears, the United
States navy planned to make the same
or similar changes in some of its ships.
Then the British took issue with Wash
ington officials on the question whether
such changes were allowable under a
certain section of the armament-limita-
ton treaty. Thus the United States was
placed in position wherein its conduct
might easily be Inexperienced by for
elgn peoples. .-
One cannot undertake to say Just what
the authors of the treaty had in mind
when they composed the section now in
dispute. AS THE LIGHT remarked re.
Gently, it is sad commentary upon hu,
man imperfections that two people:
speaking the same language and having
common racial antecedents should bt
unable to understand each other ever
when their intentions are reduced t.
writing. To the average American, II
doubt, the word type" means just on
thing. In this Interpretation, the cleva
ton of a gun could easily pc increased
so as TO give it a longer range, withou
necessarily changing the type of eithe
the gun or its carriage. But whethe
the alterations proposed by the Unite
States navy would affect the gun car
riagcs to such an extent as to constitut