The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1928-09-29
KELLOGG REPLY
WINS PRAISE
HERE

Reaction to the American note to
France and Great Britain, declining
70 accept as a basis for further
naval disarmament the Franco Brit
ish compromise agreement on light
cruiser and submarine construction,
was decidedly favorable in naval and
other official circles here today.
1t was thought Secretary Kellogg
had stated clearly and with amiabil-
fly the American position in such
q way as to make it impossible for
charge of -hampering naval Jimita-
ton to stand against the United
States.
Leaves Way Open
The note points the way for dis
cussions to be resumed. in the Pre-
liminary Commission on Disarma-
ment Of the League of Nations.
through an informal proposal made
by France in March, 1927, at meet.
ing of this commission. which never
became part of the record.
The American Secretary of State
reaffirmed the position taken by the
United States at Geneva. setting
forth American requirements for
10,000-ton cruisers carrying 8-inch
were for a limitation of this class
far below that which they desired
10 put on ships of lighter tonnage
carrying 6-inch guns, which, in fact,
10 a limitation so high that the
American delegation considered it
in effect no limitation at ALL"
This same proposal, the note cor
tlnued lis now presented IN a new
and even more Objectionable form
which still limits large cruisers
which are suita BILE to American
needs, but frankly places no ,;mita.
ton whatever on cruisers carrying
guns of six inches or less m calibre.
This proposal is obviously incom-
patible with the American position
at the hree-power conference. II
IS even more unacceptable than the
proposal put forward by the British
delegation at that conference"
Oppose Submarine Plan
Likewise, the Kellogg note de
clsres, the American Government
cannot accept as distinct class of
submarines, those of 500 IONS. which
would be limited under the Franco.
British agreement. leaving ithout
restriction those Of less than 500.
500.
The American Government seek
no special advantage on the sea"
the note said, but clearly cannot
permit itself to be placed IN q Losi.
ton of manifest Disadvantages
The Franco-Britlsh agreement. Il
said, would actually tend 10 defeat
the primary objective of a1v con.
ference for the reduction or the
limitation Of armament in hat y
would not eliminate connection n
naval armament and would MT ef,
feet economy"
For all these reasons the Govern
ment Of the United States feels tfsat
~ accepting as A basis of discussion
the Franco-British proposal"
LONDON, Sept 29.-Despite tas
vigorous language of the American
note explaining the naval needs c.:
the United States. the document
was we'll received in London.
Government officials were gr.'i
fled because the note expressed he
Willingness of America TO partici, pate
in future negotiations for Iimitat on
of naval ornaments There had
been some anxiety that the United
states Government might have he
come so piqued over the SO ere:
Anglo-French agreement, that l.
would disclaim interest in fu.m q
efforts to curb the sea strength uf
the naval powers.
While Great Britain clngs 10 the
tradition Of her supreme nay Il
strength, taxes have mounted SO
high that the government is anxious
TO curb construction. The only
issue IL the class of warcraft that
sha9 ~ limited.