Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-10-10

Emphatic Endorsement Of the State
Departments action In disappearing the
naval agreement submitted by Great
Britain and France is given by the
American press, with many expressions
of hope that the incident may lead to
a better understanding abroad of this
countrys attitude.
THE Washington note is definite and
strong. It cannot be mistaken. But 1t
is not necessarily offensive" in the
opinion of the Philadelphia Evening
Bulletin. While 1t still insists
upon its rejection of the British light
cruiser plan which was the stumbling
block at Geneva, 1t evinces a desire and
a spirit for cooperation If there shall
be fair play for all sides. The Washing
ton note may serve to clear a situation
which has been muddled by laundering
diplomacy overseas" The Bulletin adds
that the note makes considerable con-
cession to the French conception OF
global tonnage in naval limitation as an
opening for further negotiations with
that government"
Great Britain and France will have
to try again, but in the OPEN" advises
the Chicago Daily News, holding that
sit is not necessary to assume that they
intended to enSnare the United States,
and remarking further: "They may have
attempted sincerely to remove obstacles
to further reduction of ornaments. But
they have blundered, and so have failed
rather diShearteningly, from the liberal
point of view"
X X X
1.-TWO principal objects are accom-
plished by the note" according to the
New York Sun. This Government
| declines to take a position which might
invalidate its consistent and logical
policy with regard to its weapons of
defense upon the sea; 1t also avoids that
kind of discussion of tentative agree
ment between two foreign nations which
might reasonably be interpreted as med
ding with the affairs of others"
The San Antonio Express emphasizes
the point that 1.-THE United States seeks
no special privileges on the high seas,
but it will not submit to such unjustifl-
able handicapS as acceptance of the
Anglo French accord would impose"
AS to the proposition from across the
water, the Oakland Tribune says: THE
fleets envisioned are admirably planned
to serve the purposes of nation with
naval bases in all parts of the world,
and not at all suited to a nation with
few distant bases and smaller and
purely defensive naval force. For the
United States to sign such document
would be worse than foolish, for it
would mean either sharp reductions of
naval strength or complete new pro-
gram to include many bases in distant
lands"
The refusal to admit that the sub
ject Is closed or that the issue has been
killed. is regarded by the Detroit News
as good craftsmanship. Evidence that
the Anglo-French plan was submitted
to Washington to be rejected, and thus
to kill further discussion on naval limi-
tation," adds the Detroit paper, sis seen
In the fact that, in his reply, Secretary
Kellogg or President Coolidge coppered
this scheme by handing out direct in
ducement to France to stand with us in
opposition to the British plan"
* x X x
Fearing that an excess Of caution on
the part of the two foreign nations may
"shatter the lovely peace dream in
which we have been INDUCING" the AL
| toona Mirror asks, "if France and Great
Britain are in earnest in their professed
adherence of bloodshed, why should
they be SO cautious in their dealings
with our country?"
ITO the world, the Anglo-French un-
derSta1QIng, as preliminary 10 re-
sumption of disarmament conferences,
has the look of the old three cornered
coin matching game" ayers the Louis
vile Courier journal. while the Rock
Island Argus suggests: 1.-THE history of
conferences devoted to the limitation of
navies is not of reasSuring character
| Our Government should proceed with
| the task of building vessels of war in
accordance with our needs as a Nation
That is what France and England are
doing, and is what they always intended
| to do"
An entirely different point of view is
taken by the Minneapolis Tribune. with