The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-02-16
Another Arms Conference2

British feelers for new naval limitation negotiations
with the United States will be welcomed by friends of
peace everywhere. There can be no stable world peace
without reconciliation Of the present Anglo-American
DISPUTES. Hence the Importance of the official state
mat of Sir Esme Howard, British ambassador at
Washington.
Everything points toward an early resumption of
negotiations, and, with a far better understanding of
the needs of the respective parties than existed at
Geneva in 1927, there should be a very good prospect
of their being brought to a satisfactory conclusion"
the ambassador said.
Certain critics look with suspicion on this latest
move by the British government. One American group
sees in it an attempt to influence congress to POSTPONE
the ffteen-cruiser building program for one year in
line with President Coolidge's budget estimates, MAX
ing no provision for immediate expenditures.
Some British liberals and laborites explain these
teelers as an election weapon of the conservative gov
eminent in the British campaign, by which the
government hopes to wipe out the voters resentment
of its alleged a~nti-Amercan policy in the Geneva con-
ference and the Anglo-French alliance"
without specific Information regarding motives
of the London government, we prefer to believe that it
is actuated solely by a desire for better Anglo-Amer-
lean relations and for the consequent advantage to
British prosperity and peace!
But, just as it is desirable that both governments
begin planning at this time for another conference, it
is equally desirable that no conference be attempted
this spring or summer The disagreeable truth is
that ~Anglo-American relations can not stand many
more failures such as the Coolidge Geneva confer
ence. Better no conference at all than another break.
Any conference in which Britain is represented by
the rule-or-ruin policy of the British admiralty will
not only crash, but will give to American militariSts a
power over future American policy which they do not
now possess.
Lord Robert Cecil, a member of the British Geneva
delegation, in ~resigning revealed how completely the
admiralty dominates the foreign Office and present
conservative government.
The only hope is for a new British government,
armed with a popular mandate sufficiently strong to
reduce the admiralty to a mere advisory capacity at
the next naval conference.
There can be no doubt that British public and
press as a whole have reacted sharply against the
admiralty policy at Geneva and the Anglo-French
deal, and reacted sharply in favor of a friendly agree
ment with the United States.
This popular pro-American sentiment in Britain
can not register itself effectively until the general cleo
tons next May or June. At that time, presumably, 1t
either will elect the labor-hberal opposition now cam
IMAGINING on pro-American platforms, or will reduce
the present die-hard majority enough to force a more
peaceful foreign policy on the new and chasteneo
conservative government.
+, either case the next British government will be
more ant to meet the Hoover administration han way
in a settlement of the growing dispute over cruisers
and freedom of the seas.
Sir Esme probably is right in foreseeing improved
prospects of an agreement, provided we are not ruSnee
into another abortive conference.