Evening star., 1923-03-24
553 NAVY RATIO
NIL UNLESS j. s.
CHANGES BIG GUNS
Experts Urge Increasing
Range of Main Batteries to
:. That of British Ships.
NOT CONSIDERED BREACH
OF FOUR-POWER TREATY
State Department Consults With
= Officers Before Asking
Presidents O. K.

The 5-5-3 naval ratio. the founda-
tion stone OF all the naval agreements
growing out of the Washington arms
conference. will be utterly destroyed
unless the United States carries out
its program to modernize the Amerl-
can treaty fleet. in the opinion of ex-
Nrt naval officers. as it has taken
shape after a careful study of the
whole subject
The range of the American Navy's 8
main batteries, it was authoritatively
asserted, will be extended at least to
The $4,000 yards now claimed by Great
Britain, despite informal intimations
from London that the British govern
1nent would regard such a move as a
breach of the treaty.
Rated mt 6-5-4.
On a computation in which all the
known factors of naval power were
considered. some officers occupying
advisory positions in the Navy De-
partment are inclined to rate the
treaty navies of Great Britain, the
United States and Japan, respectively
on 6-5-4 basis. with the United
States placed in the position of being
compelled to modernize her capita!
ships If she is to restore the compare
tive standing to which she subscribed.
This revised basis is admittedly y
reached on incomplete Information,
and a possible autsrowth OF the pres
ent situation is a request that the
other parties to the treaty make an
official statement of details of their
impending and present naval pro-
grams, and of their Interpretation of
certain clauses Of the treaty as now
written.
To Go to President.
! Decision upon the question Of
whether such requests will be made
rests with the State Department
which now has the general subject
of the Navy treaty under discussion
with naval officials. 1t is thought
Improbable that any decision will be
reached before the matter had been
laid before Presid mt Harding. with
whom also rests the final decision as
to whether the United States should
go ahead with the modernizatiOn
program authorized by Congress, in
the face OF hints from Great Britain
that such Ii course would be inter
preted as opposed to the spirit of the
treaty.
Naval officers who were concerned
III preparation OF the estimates upon
" hich the American conference dele
cation acted in approving tho naval
covenants take the position that the
relative standing of the navies and
the effect should the United States
rail to remedy existing deficiencies
was we'll known 10 all the cOnfereeS,
and that the right of the United
States to remodel her fleet must there
fore be conceded.
In any other case. they insist. the
much discussed naval ratio becomes
in the final analysts ratio solely of
tonnage. which is minor element in
computation Of naval strength.
Rating of Advantage.
In support OF this view it is known
that the Naval War College. the gen
'ral board and a majority Of the gem
eral officers who make up Secretary
Dcnby's official circle of advisers have
stated their opinion that with A fairly
equal fleet speed and a superiority of
5000 yards in fleet battle range, the
British fleet holds an advantage over
thar OF the United States which can
be computed as high as 90 per cent.
Lack of accurate details to Jap
aneSe naval activity is stressed b.
american experts in every study they
make of the situation. The japanese
press recently published Il story that
the current naval estimates included
60.000.000 yen for ''moderni::ing the
fleet" but advces to the japanese
embassy indicate that this sum is cal
"ulated TO cover a PERIOD OF eight
Wears and that only a LITTLE over
100000 yen. or roughly 81 0UO.00e, is
10 be spent this year.
Details of the purposes for which
rms eXper rdlture Will go are not
available, but it is presumed it will
cover the cost of improvements which
are the outgrowth of Japanese CO.
operation with allied fleets during
the war! as we'll as protection against
submarine and air attack.
Treaty Declared Vague.
The wording of the treaty. accord
ing to Navy officers, is very vague.
Both the British and French inter
pretations show a wide discrepancy
1C'ontinIed on Page . COllImn &