Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-09-14
GREAT ARMAMENTSJ
OPPOSED.BY JONES
Head of U. S. Naval Delega-
ton at Geneva Makes Stand
Clear in Interview.

Insisting that he is opposed to great
ornaments" Rear Admiral Hilary p.
Jones, U. 8. NJ, retired, head of the
American naval delegation at the
Geneva conference on the limitation of
armament, in an interview released today
through Pathe Sound News, declared
that 1.-The Navy desires limitation that
will be equitable to all concerned and
will not jeopardize what we consider
absolutely necessary to our national de-
fense."
Hetalded as 1.-The first interview which
Admiral Jones has ever given to the
press" the sound film production, to
be shown in various theaters through
out the country, reveals that the ad-
miral believes that the United States
has "a right to equality with the
strongest sea power and that We can
not accept by agreement position of
inferiority to any power" The Ameri-
can Navy, Admiral Jones holds. still
stands by its position that the United
States would be willing ito go as low
as the most powerful nation on the
sea would agree to go" in the reduction
Of naval armament.
Text of Interview.
Admiral Jones, who makes his home
at 1853 Columbia road, speaks in the
interview as follows:
There seems to be a very widespread
opinion in our country that naval off,
GERS are fundamentally opposed to any
movement looking to the reduction and
limitation Of ornaments. Such an at
titude Of mind on the part Of the
general public is wholly unjust to naval
officers and tends to discredit us in
our earnest efforts to keep our national
defense forces at the level that We hon.
estly consider absolutely necessary for
national security. Nevertheless. We are
anxious that that level shall be fixed
by international agreement at the low
est point compatible with safety. We
would be grossly negligent of our duty
II we did not keep in mind always the
defense of our country and its enor-
nous commercial interests spread over
all the seven seas.
with the sympathetic help and CO.
operation of my naval associates, have
worked increasingly since the first meet
ing of the Preparatory Commission for
the Disarmament Conference, held in
Geneva in 1926, to find some fair basis
of agreement for the limitation Of ar
maments, and I am sure that I am
speaking the mind of all thinking naval
officers when I say that the Navy de-
sires a limitation that will be equita
BILE to all concerned and will not jeop-
ardiZe what we consider absolutely nee
essary to our national defense.
Resents Big Navy Term.
II resent very much the term big
Navy advocates as applied to naval
officers and also to those members of
Congress who are sincerely solicitous
for the defense Of our national inter-
ests. I am opposed to great ornaments
because do not believe that the tax
payers of the world should be burdenied
witt nf I'm
maintaining ornaments beyond the
minimum necessary to national secur-
ity. Furthermore, I am convinced that
competition in ornaments tends to
create suspicion and uneasiness in the
| world and thereby helps to bring on
war.
ON several occasions in Geneva.
| representatives of other countries have
| spoken to me of the great wealth ami
! power of the United States and of our
consequent ability to build up and
maintain great ornaments, in contrast
to conditions in their own countries
My reply to such observations was that
while I fully recognized that we were
a wealthy country and could afford to
build up ornaments, If necessary, our
| people did mot want to spend their
| money in that way; that they preferred
| to spend 1t on schools, good roads, and
even on travel in Europe rather than
on huge ornaments. -
1T must always be remembered, how
| ever, that there Is a minimum below
which we cannot afford to go because
our geographical position imposes upon
us the necessity of carrying on opera
| tons in far distant waters If We
should go below that minimum We
| would be unable to keep any vessels
| operating in those distant areas. Above
that irreducible minimum the question
| of the relative strength of naval arrna-
ments becomes a matter for consider
| ing and agreement.
AT disarmament conferences it has
been the earnest effort of all represent
atives of the United States, naval as
| well as diplomatic, to bring the level
of that relative limitation as low as
possible, but We have maintained. and
believe few in this country will dispute
1t. that We have a right to equality
with the strongest sea power and, that
we cannot accept by agreement posi-
ton of inferiority to any power"