New Britain herald., 1925-01-08
GUN ELEVATION IS
 NOT A VIOLATION
(contlnued From First Pagel

tCpnunueu From flIbl LabGl alterations" not violating tho treaty but he added that he realized they might tend toward a revival of com petition out Of harmony with the well established position ot the United States
 The secretary prcfaCCd his state ment by reference 10 the tact that the resolution had not been adopted, but said that nevertheless he saw no objections to giving congress tho Information.
 State Department Data
 The only data the state dcpart- mcnt had on tho subject ho said was thls.
 Tn a communication under date of March l5, 1923, tho British am bassa dor at Washington reviewed the report that had heen made as to the increase In the elevation of tur- ret guns Of British ships and made the categorical declaration that no alteration had been made in the elevation Of turrct guns of any British capital ships since they were first placed in commission.
 Tn subsequent communications from the British ambassador at Washington it has been stated 10 be the view of His NajestY's govern ment that an increase in the eleva- fuon of turret guns is not permis- sble under the terms Of the naval treaty with special reference to Chapter 2, Part 3, Section l. (D). which prohibits, subject to certain exceptions expressly provided for, any reconstruction of retained capi- tai ships or os aircraft carriers, ex- cept for the purpose of providing means of defense against air and submarine attacks.
 View on Reconstruction
 "As regards the question whether such increase in the elevation of turret guns involves any 'reconstruc- ton it Is stated to be the view of the British government that the in- crease Of the elevation of guns, to- gether with consequential alterations such es scrapping or replacing of existing fire control system. etc, in- wolves considerable reconstruction in the fullest sense of the term.
 'The British government lay par tcular emphasis upon what it de- scribed as a larger aspect of the question, that is to say that one of the objects of the treaty is to re- duce the burden of competition in armament and the British govern ment feel that action by the United States In the elevation of turret guns would tend to defeat this ob- lect to a considerable extent.
 British Appeal
 '1n these circumstances the British government make an earnest appeal that the government of the United States should not impose upon the peoples of the countries concerned the burdens of compe- titton in armament which are deemed to result from the execution VI "iAV plSpNSot ~ tI' ' ats tIls lllIs ret guns on retained capital ships Of the United States, it being con- stdered that even if arguments can be found In support of the contrary interpretation of the treaty the ef- feet of carrying out such proposals would be incompatible with its con- tehtloRs. The assurance is re- peated that no alteration has been made in the elevation of the turret guns of any existing British capital ship since they were first placed In commission. It was further pro- posed that the government of the United tSates, the Japanese govern United States, the Japanese govern (the government of France and Italy not being deemed to be directly concerned in view of the exceptions of the treaty. should undertake not 10 make during the term of the treaty any increase in the elevation of the turret guns of their existing capital ships.
 Japan Not Opposed
 T have been informed by the Jap. anese government that 1t was ir ? view of the Japanese government that change in gun elevation which did not require changes of the prohibited sort in the ships them. selves, would be a violation of the naval treaty.
 T may add, that, in view of tht detailed description given by tho navy, department of the nature O the changes which would be neces sary to elevate the turret guns or the capital ships retained by tht United States, these changes appear to be of a minor sort, and in my opinion would not constitute a re construction of the ship within tn, meaning which should he attributed to the provision of the naval treaty.
 Fear for Competition.
 T am of the opinion, howeye that while such changes as would b, contemplated in the case of Ameri can ships would not constitute vlo lation Of the terms of the treaty they would tend to evoke the compe tition which it has been the polio, of this government to mitigate. l may also be stated that so far as In United States IS concerned, the ques tian appears to be of coneequenc only in relation to certain of tn specified retained ships and thes ships under the replacement claus of the treaty are to be replaces within 10 or 12 years. "