Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-01-08
ECONOMY BLOCKING
ELEVATION Of GUNS:
TREATY ALLOWS It
Hughes Tells House Naval
Committee Japan Agrees
With u. S. Position.
BRITAIN OBJECTED, BUT
MAINLY FEARED RIVALRY
Wilbur Explains Expenditures
Urged by Experts Run Counter
to Presidents Plans.


Congress was informed today that
the administration does not regard the
much debated proposal to modernize
American battleships as conflicting
with the arms treaty, but that Presi-
dent Coolidge believes that both the
modernization program and certain
proposed new construction would
conflict with his policy of economy.
Secretary Hughes, in a letter to
the House naval committee, declared
Japan and the United States agreed
that elevation of guns on American
capital ships would be in harmony
with the treaty, although Great Bri-
tain had taken the opposite view.
Wilbur Explains Position.
Secretary Wilbur, appearing before
the same committee. said although
the Navy Department would like to
/ See enough construction and altera-
ton to bring the Navy as a whole
up to the 500 ratio. the expendi-
lures necessary had been vetoed by
the Budget Bureau with the backing
of the President.
Secretary Hughes, in his letter. took
the position that elevation of guns on
American capital ships would not
violate the arms treaty, although it :
might have the unfortunate effect of
tending to promote naval competition.
The letter also recited that while
Great Britain had taken the view that
the alterations proposed would be
violation of the treaty, Japan took
the opposite position.
Cites British Appeal.
Mr.. Hughes wrote the committee in
response to a resolution asking
whether any protests against the ele-
walton program had been made by
foreign powers. The British Ambas-
sador. he said. on March Is, 1928. had
brought up the subject earnestly ap-
pealing'' to the State Department
against any alteration of the present
gun elevations and giving positive as
surances that no such alterations had
been made on any British capital ship
after its commission.
The British view, the Secretary said
was that the changes proposed in
American ships would constitute
major alterations" prohibited by the
treaty. Mr.. Hughes agreed with the
Japanese opinion that they should be
regarded rather as minor altera-
tons" not violating the treaty, but
he added that he realized they might
| tend toward a revival of competition
out of harmony with the well estab-
lished position of the United States
The Secretary prefaced his state
| ment by a reference to the fact that
the resolution had not been adopted.
but he said that nevertheless he saw
no objection to giving Congress the
information. The only" data the
State Department had on the subject
he said was this:
British Deny Charges
I'm a communication under date of
March Is, 1928, the British Ambassa-
| dor a Washington reviewed the re-
| port that had been made as to the
| increase in the elevation of turret
guns of British ships and made the
categorical declaration that no alter
alton had been made in the elevation
! of turret guns of any British capital
J ships since they were first placed in
! commission.
! In subsequent communications
| from the British Ambassador at
| Washington it has been stated to be
| the view of his majesty's government
! that an increase in the elevation of
/ turret guns is not permissible under
| the terms of the naval treaty, with
! special reference to chapter ?, part 3,
| section l, CD which prohibits, subject
| to certain exceptions expressly pro-
! vided for, any reconstruction of re-
| tanned capital ships or of aircraft
! carriers. except for the purpose of
! providing means of defense against
| air and submarine attacks.
| LAS regards the question whether
| such increase in the elevation of tur-
ret involves any 'reconstruction,' 1t is
stated to be the view of the British
| government that the increase of the
| elevation of guns, together with con-
sequential alterations. such as scrap
1
! control system. etc. involves consid-
| cradle reconstruction in the fullest
! sense of the term.
Large Aspect Involved.
| THE British government lay par
| ticular emphasis upon what it de-
scribed as a larger aspect of the ques-
! tion that is to say. that one of the
| objects of the treaty is to reduce the
| burden of competition in armament,
md the British government feel that
action by the United States in the ele-
walton of turret guns would tend to
defeat this object to considerable
extent
in these circumstances the. Brit
ish government make an ear E!>r. ap-
peal that the Government of the United
States should not impose upon the peo-
pies of the countries concerned the bur
dens of competition in armament
which are deemed to result from the
execution of the proposal to elevate
the turret guns on retained capital
ships of the United States, it being
considered that even If arguments
can be found in support of the con-
trary Interpretation of the treaty, the
effect of carrying out such proposals
would be incompatible with it's con-
tention.
THE assurance is repeated that no
alteration has been made in the ele-
walton of the turret guns of any
existing British capital ship since
they were first placed in commission.
1t was further proposed that the
Government of the United States.
the japanese government and the
British government Cthe governments
of France and Italy not being deemed
to be directly concerned in view of
the exceptions of the treaty. should
undertake not to make during the
term of the treaty any increase in
the elevation of the turret guns of
their existing capital ships.
Japan's View Stated.
Il have been Informed by the Jap
anese government that it was not the
view of the Japanese government
that a change in gun elevation which
did not require changes of the pro-
CONTINUED on Page 4, Column 8.