The Washington times., 1929-04-22

POWERS FAVOR
j. s. STAND
ON NAVY
CONTINUED rom First PageD

CONTINUED from First Page)
ton Of limitation to be effected
shall be in all classes Of fighting
craft, many Of which are now un-
touched by existing treaties.
Gibson pointed out that some 90
odd nations have recently renounced
war as an instrument OF national
policy by adhering to the Kellogg
anti-war treaty. II they are sim
cere in this protestation against
war. he asked, why viii they not
now be willing to follow the United
states in q real effort to reduce the
fighting sea compliments Of all
nations In all classes of craft?
ANY approach to the disarma-
ment problem on purely technical
grounds Is bound to be inconclu-
sive," Gibson said. 1.-THE technical
justification Of arnaments Is based
upon the experience Of past wars
and upon the anticipation Of future
wars. SO long as the approach to
the problem is based on old fears
and old suspicious, there is little
hope Of disarmament.
Armaments Relics
eff we are honest, IL our solemn
promise in the Kellogg) pact means
anything, there Is no justification
for the continuation Of war-taxed
peace. Great armaments are but
the relic of another age, but they
viii remain a necessary relic until
the present deadlock is broken and
that can be accomplished only by
the decision Of the powers posses
sing the greatest armaments to
initiate measures of reduction.
I'm the opening statement at the
Three-Power Naval Conference
(America, England, and Japan in
1927, I took occasion, in suggesting
certain tonnage levels as a basis Of
comparison, to say that the United
States is prepared to agree to q
plan for limitation at still lower
levels which maintain the relative
status Of existing treaties. This il
still the attitude of my Government,
and am authorized to say that on
this basis we are willing to agree
to any reduction, however drastic,
of naval tonnage which leaves no
type of war vessel unrestricted"
Gibson pointed out that most Of
the suggestions advanced since the
Washington conference have been
of such a nature as to sanction
existing ornaments, and, in some
cases. actually increase them, which
he characterized as "only timid
expedient."
80 long as the nations are bur-
dened with increasing taxation for
the maintenance of ornaments, it is
idle to pretend, that the world il
really advancing toward the goal Of
diSarnna menf % he continued
Wants Actual Reduction
1.-THE word limitation has come
to be used chiefly in describing
agreements at existing levels or
still higher levels, and is generally
looked upon as having nothing to
do with actual reduction. Let US,
therefore. take the bold course and
begin by scrapping the term 'limita-
ton in order to concentrate upon a
general reduction of armaments.
MY Government believes that
there can be no complete and eff
fective limitation of armament u1-
less all classes of war vessels, in
cluding cruisers. destroyers, and
submarines are limited. It could
not agree to any method which
would result in leaving any class Of
combatant vessels unrestricted.
The willingness of my govern
ment; may even say its eager
ness, to go to low levels, is based
upon the fundamental belief that
naval needs are relative: namely,
that what we may require for our
defense depends chiefly upon the
size OF the navies maintained by
Others. Aside from the sfgnatories
OF the washington treaty, there is
no conceivable combination of naval
power which could threaten the
safety of any of the principal naval
powers
my government cannot find anv
justification for the building and
maintenance Of large naval estab-
lishments save on the ground that
no power can reduce except as a
result OF general reduction. Let
US ask ourselves honestly what
these establishments are for. As
regards the relation of the mari.
TIME powers among themselves,
there is no such need. Even IL
the danger OF war is admitted, it
could be guarded against Just az
well by the maintenance Of relative
strength at low levels as at higher
levels
The people of every country are
crylRg out against the burdens of
taxation and demanding the sur
preston of unnecessary expenditure.
Relative Needs
my government believes fairly in
idea that naval needs are relative
and that radical general reduction is
its idea that naval needs are relative
tive needs. rust that these views
may commend themselves to other
governments and that it may be
possible only on the theory Of rela.
tions.
IF. however, It is impossible to
agree on this thesis, it is obvious
that there will remain only the
thesis of absolute naval needs. This
would mean that all thought of re-
duction is abandoned, that each
country retains a free hand in
building with an inevitable ten.
dency toward competition. Surely
we can hardly envisage such a Sc
quel to our solemn undertaking
to keep the peace.
MY government has always felt
that we need no exact balance OF
ships and guns which can be based
only upon the idea Of conflict
what is really wanted is a common
sense agreement, based on the idea
that we are going to be friends and
settle our problems by peaceful
means.
my government feels that
genuine disarmament will follow
only from a change of attitude to-
ward the use of force in the settle
noonf NJ jnfarU = fianaJ diSDY,fa@ II