Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-20
PARITY DEMAND OF L. s.
SHAPED FARLEY RESULT
Three-POwer Naval Pact With Five
Power Trimmings Believed to
Mean Senate Row.

per cent OF our strength in the offensive
arm, which is the big 8-inch cruiser.
In respect of the British the case In
less clear. But the chairmen Of our
naval committees in the Senate and
House. Hale and Britten; Admiral Hilary
Jones, who was our naval adviser at
London, and all the members OF the
general board of the Navy without
known exception agree that we have not
obtained parity at London. On the
contrary, they assert that we have ADAM
doned the 8-inch gunned cruiser for the
6-inch craft for a very large fraction OF
our tonnage and thus in permitting the
British to persuade us to use the ship
their experts desire us to have, our dele
gates, while getting the semblance OF
parity in tonnage, have sacrificed the
reality in actual fighting force.
Senate Struggle FOreseen.
In the face of this situation it Ia
clear that the treaty will pass the Sem
ate, If at all, only after fight which
may well recall in length and ferceneSs
the struggle over the treaty Of YER
sailles. Against it are arrayed the best or
the fighters, Borah and Hiram Johnson;
the head of the Senate naval commit
tee, Hale; the Progressives. led by young
La Toilette, and many Democrats, In
tackled by the Progressives because it IL
not reduction, by the Navy champions
because it is not parity and by many
| others because 1t is not limitation but
| an involvement of our naval policy In
European complications.
Since adjournment is at hand, it VIII
be next Winter before the treaty can
come up, and an election will have
INTERVIEWED. If the election results In Q
tot RN0 70
| treaty seems assured, but even II the
Republicans hold the House, the fight
| in the Senate promises to be one OF the
| bitterest in recent years. The victory
| of Mrs. Mccormick in Illinois has
heartened all the opponents OF the ma
| val treaty.
In reading the proof Of this article
it occurs to me that I have paid too
scant attention to the battleship detail.
The decision to scrap five ships for the
! British, three for ourselves and one Tor
the Japanese, although all three will
retain a ship for training purposes, does
represent reduction, but only in OBJ
solescent ships. which would in any
event disappear long before 1886.
| AS the battleship holiday, this repre-
sents a saving of the interest on the
sums which would be expanded during
the next six years for replacement, less
the aQueQ cOSCS Oh maintaining oto
ships. This has been variously esti-
mated, and perhaps might amount to
! $50, 100000. But, as the New York
Herald Tribune pointed out the other
| day, no claim of saving of the cost Of
replacement can be advanced until the
conference of 1896 determines whether
capital ships are to be abandoned or
the existing ships replaced by q new
type. What has been done is no more
than deferring payment on the note.
Real saving in costs Of replacement
would have been assured only II we had
| decided to abolish the type. Then the
| $3.50, 900 900 mentioned in some reports,
| instead of the problematical $50, 000, 900.
] would be the measure of economy.
(Copyright, 1s3o)