Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-02-13
Continued from First Page.)

a proposal by Great Britain to get
away entirely from submarines.
| The view of the United States at
| that time also was averse to the
| abandonment of the submarine. The
original Hughes proposal. covering all
kinds Of naval craft, gave to Great t
Britain and the United States $4,000
tons Of submarines, and to Japan
| "a 200 tons. while France and Italy
were to have approximately the ton
mage they then had. But France in
| sisted that IL Great Britain was to
| have 10000 tons of submarines.
| France should have the same. The
| TAT was in the fire.
| II ia the fear that Great Britain
and France may not have mod1ned
their attitude toward the submarine
and other auxiliary craft which has
IA used pessimism here over the pro-
nosed naval limitation conference.
Secretary kellogg i'm his letter to
the House foreign AFFAIRS committee
sets forth clearly the opposing posi-
lions regarding arms limitation taken
| bv the United states and France. lie
does mol name France but mentiohs
zone school Of thought which EN-
bodies the theory of France on arms
| limitation.
Answers Some Misgivings.
ar learn said Mr.. Kellogg, that
certain members of Congress feel
some misgivings as to the desiraDinty
OF appropriating funds for our TURNER
participatlon in the work OF the pre-
paratory commission on the nmita'
| zion and reduction of armaments.
The Secretary said those misslvins
were based on the idea the prepare.
| tory conference had accomplished
nothing. This, he said. was a mis-
| take. He continued:
at cannot be justly said that there
has been no progress, although IL
| az yet too soon to prophesy Win
any certainty az to how lar deHnite
achievements will prove practlcapIe
but 1t la the view of this Govern
ment that so long as there Is any
| hope of attaining definite results ~
| would be inconsistent with our traol
tional policy for us to withhold our
full cooperation.
when the preparatory commits.
sion met there were many divergent
views expressed as to what eOnstl
tuted practical solutions for the vari'
Gus problems set forth in the ques
tionnaire. These problems were re-
ferred to various technical subcom
mittees, which, after discussing them
during several months, succeeded In
eliminating number of conflicting
views and narrowed the field to two
principal schools of thought.
One Viewpoint Stated.
Zone school of thought, which is
representative of the views of a group
of governments chiefly situated with
in a limited area Of the European
continent, may be generally indicated
by five of its fundamental principles
I'D That security must be guaran'
teed by some form Of military assist
ance against aggression as a neces
sary condition precedent to the reduc
ton and limitation of ornaments.
"t2) That agreements for the reduc.
ton and limitation of ornaments must
be guaranteed by an international in
spection and control of the military
establishments to ascertain whether
treaty obligations were being faith.
fully executed.
''(3) That there exists a complete
interdependence of ornaments and
that it is impossible to deal with any
single category Qand, sea or air)
without simultaneously dealing with
the others.
Industrial Factor Rated.
80 That it is not sufficient to deal
with the actual peacetime ornaments
Of nations but that Industrial. finan-
cial. economic and other factors must
be taken into account in any general
scheme that may be drawn up.
"(5) That any agreements on the
limitation and reduction OF ornaments
in order to be effective must be uni
versal and there must be a single
standard system applicable to all coun-
tries of the world.
This scheme appears to us to in.
volve so many complicated and diff
ficult factors that it's adoption would
retard rather than forward the limi.
tation and reduction of armaments