Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-13
NAVAL PACT. FACING
SENATE OPPOSITION.
Republicans, However, Ex.
peCt Ratification in Spite of
Big Fleet Advocates.
Ccontlnued Prom FIRST pagel

Senate or not. ..~,-.
Senator, that the treaty is not to COM
init us politically in Europe. shall be
glad to support the treaty if it proves
TO be one that commends itself to my
judgment"
Senator Hale, chairman of the Sen
ate naval affairs committee, would make
no comment on the London treaty. He
has, however, taken strong position
In the past on the question Of 10000.
ton cruisers, demanding that the United
States be permitted to construct a.
many Of these ships as it deems neces.
eAry. It appears quite likely, there.
Tore, that the chairman Of the nava
AnAifs committee will be found In the
van OF the opposition to the treaty.
Must Cancel Five.
Senator Hale is disappointed because
the United States is not, under the
terms Of the treaty, to carry out the
program laid down by Congress for the
construction of 1o,0O0-ton cruisers car
rying 8-inch. guns. Twenty-three Of
these cruisers have been authorized
eight by the act of December, 1924, and
fifteen by the act Of February, 1929
Two OF these new cruisers are nearly
completed and five more are more thar
treaty will provide for only IS of these
10, 000At0n cruisers for the United States
and is of them for Britain. In other
words. the United States will have to
cancel five OF these proposed cruisers
which have been authorized by legisla-
ton.
The total cruiser tonnage to be al
lowed the United states under the Lon
don agreement is $4,000 tons. OF this
total, 10000 tons will be In eighteen
lO,000-ton cruisers. The United States
has already ten cruisers of the Memphis
class. armed with 6-inch guns, account
Ing for another 70,500 tons. The re-
maindef, some $4,000 tons of cruisers
would have to be of the smaller type
The United States Navy has listed today
about 10000 tons of cruisers, the
newest Of which is IS years DID, due for
the scrap heap in most cases before
very long.
On the Democratic side of the cham
Der, Senator Mcclellan of Tennessee is
known to be strongly opposed to any
treaty which does not give full parity
with Great Britain to the American
Navy, and he, like Senator Hale. is
not satisfied with the limitation placed
on the number of 1o,o00-ton cruisers
with a wide cruising radius which the
United States is permitted to build
Senator Mcclellan last night did not
wish to be committed finally, however,
against the treaty.
Senator Swanson Of Virginia, ranking
Democratic member of the foreign re-
lations committee and also of the naval
affairs committee, would not be quoted
In regard to the treaty. He has always
stood in the past for strong American
Navy.
One argument which may be ad-
vanced by opponents Of the London
naval treaty when it comes to the
Senate Is found in a suggestion that II
violates the Constitution. Under the
Constitution. Congress is given the
power to provide for the construction
and upkeep of a Navy. It is now point
ed out that under the limitation treaty
negotiated by the President and ratified
by the Senate, the House Is excluded
from having q say In what the size OF
the American Navy shall be.
Senators Support Expected.
Senator Reed Of Pennsylvania, Re-
publican, and Senator Robinson of
Arkansas, the Democratic leader of the
Senate, are members Of the American
ence. If they both return to the
Senate, convinced Of the fairness and
usefulness OF the proposed treaty, they
are likely to exert powerful influence
for its ratification. They are both mem
berS of the foreign relations committee,
and Senator Robinson Is also a MEM
Der Of the naval affairs committee.
There has so far been no indication
when the Senate may expert the new
naval treaty to be submitted to it. The
question was raised yesterday whether
the President would send the treaty to
the Senate for consideration at the
present session of Congress. AT the
White House, 1t was said no decision in
this matter had been reached. It Il
not expected that the treaty will be in
Washington until May. Congress is
planning to get away by June Is if it
can get the tariff bill and appropriation
measures out of the way. The treaty
doubtless will lead to long debate in the
Senate and, If pressed for consideration
at this time, might delay considerably
the adjournment of the Congress.
On the other hand, some Of the Re-
publican leaders took the view that it
would be quite natural for the admins
tration to wish to have the naval treaty
ratified at the earliest possible oppor-
ment and something to 60 to the coun.
try on and ask a return of Repub-
lican Congress in, November. There is
the other side to, be considered, how
ever. There may be easier sailing for
the treaty after the political campaign
IS out Of the way and the treaty is taken
up next December. Further, the PreSi-
dent could call the Senate into special
session in November, If he desired to
do so, after the elections, to take up
the treaty in advance Of the regular
session which opens in December.
One view put forward was that per-
until after the British had ratified the
naval treaty. OF course, the British
may take up the treaty and act on Il
soon after &c "A siRned.