Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-11
BY FRANK III. SIMONDS.

States. Moreover, in recent days it has
become clear that the main opposition
to ratification will come from naval
quarters-from Senators and Repre-
sentatives who as members Of the naval
committees of the two branches OF
Congress have acquired detailed
knowledge Of the requirements OF ma
tional defense, and from the great body
of officers of the Navy.
The Navy, it is clear, despite certain
not very significant exceptions, is op-
posed to the treaty. But, oddly enough,
this opposition does not arise from any
hostility to the portions of the treaty
that entail reductions. The case OF the
Navy against the treaty is not founded
upon the belief that national defense
has been weakened by any OF the
Navy group" to use the opprobrious
term, Is opposed to the London docu-
pdent only at the point where 1t
s<ovides o relatively considerable
expansion.
The issue can be briefly stated.
. Naval craft have been divided into five
categories: Capital ships, airplane car
riers, cruisers, destroyeers and SUBJ
marines. At London it was agreed that
there should be reduction in three OF
these categories, namely, capital ships,
destroyers and submarines. And 1t
was similarly agreed that at the ter
rninaticn of the period of scrapping
there should be actual mathematical
parity in these categories between the
British and American fleets.
170,0OO-Ton Reduction.
The sum total of this reduction Is
approximately 10000 tons, 10000 in
capital ships, $4,000 in deStroyers and
$4,000 in submarines. And the Navy,
without exception, has accepted these
reductions without question. NO issue
arises over the categories in which re-
duction takes place. And the same Is
true in a fourth category, that OF ar
plane carriers where the inquire. OF
Washington-135,00 900 tons-has peen
maintained at London.
THE case of the Navy against the
treaty. then, comes down to an almost
universal opposition to the arrange
ments covering cruisers. At the mo-
ment when the London conference was
called the United States had 2OO,uuU
tons of cruisers, built and building, ano
of these President Hoover discontinued
temporarily the building OF three,
amounting to 10000 tons. as sort OF
goodwill gesture: Now, under tne
States is to have either 900 tons or
$4,000. as she chooses, to distribute
tonnage between ships carrying 8-lnch
and those carrying 6-inch guns.
Had there been no conference, how
ever. the famous l5-cruiser law called
for the expansion Of the American Navy
to contain 80 cruisers, % OF 10000 tons
carrying 8-inch guns and 10 of 1000
tons mounting 6-inch guns. The Lon
don treaty calls for 36 cruisers at the
least. but at most, and. only eventually,
but is of these will have 8-inch guns
The United States is, then, going to
have three more ships and 1000 larger
tonnage as result of the London con-
ference than she would have had under
the existing law. But she is going to
have five fewer cruisers carrying e-incf
guns.
''''a position Of the Navy rests simply
on the statement that 1t prefers the
old arrangement; that it Is opposed to
substituting eight 9,500-ton boats carry
ing 6-inch guns for five 10,000-ton craft
mounting 8-inch guns. 1t holds that
the expansion in tonnage Is a waste OF
money, since 1t regards the proposed
type as far less valuable for our ma
tional needs. It would prefer three less
ships, thus combining a large saving
OF money with an alleged advantage in
national defense. And if the treaty is
ratified it will still oppose building the
6-inch gunned craft, and thus wasting
$109,oo0,o00.
Insurance Of Parity.
AS between the S-inch and 6-inch
gunned cruisers the view of Admiral
Jones, who was the American naval adj
wiser at London, of the General Board
which Is the expert body of the United
States, and of the chairnen of the
naval committee of the House and Sem
ate, are well known. All agree that
since the British possess vast superior
tty in merchant marine, capable of be-
ing transformed into warships in time
of conflict and equipped with 6-inch
guns, only marked advantage in boats
carrying 8-inch guns will insure parity
for the United States.
The 15-cruiser law, giving the United
States % 8-inch gunned ships against
is for the British satisfied the naval
experts. When the President at the
Rapidan agreed with Macdonald to re-
duce this number to 81, American naval
authorities were disturbed and dissat-
isfied. When suddenly there emerged
from secret sessions at London the
statement of Secretary Stimson, unac-
companied by any reasons, that the
American delegation had further agreed
to cut down her ships to Is, the Navy
was aroused. When finally as result
of the Japanese negotiations it was fur
ther agreed that the American construc-
ton program should be so retarded
that no more than Is 8-inch gunnec
cruisers would be completed before the
termination Of the treaty of London
O struggle in the Senate was assured.
In a word, while the detectives OF the
American delegation to the Naval Con-
ference were parity with Great Britain
and the maintenance of the so per CEN
ratio Of Washington with the Japanese
1t is the view of American naval au'
thorities that both policies have beer
abandoned. In the case of the British
although in return for an allotment o.
ID 8-inch cruisers against IS, the Unitee
States has surrendered more than Is,
600 tonS-the totals now being 339 ,00t
and just short of 324,000-by arrange
ment with the Japanese, America ha!
abandoned the employment of the RICH
to complete two of the three big boat
before 1886.
No Reason for Surrender.
AS far as the Navy and the genera
public know, no reason exists for eithe
surrender. In conSenting to reduce thu
number of 8-inch gunned cruiser
which fulfill the requirements of Amer
lean naval experts and at the sam
time to increase the number and aggre
gate tonnage of 6-inch gunned boats
which the British experts have at al
times tried to impose upon the Unite'
States, the American delegation brok
alike with the advice of her Genera
Board and the policy of the Coolidg
administration as indicated at Genev
in 1927. In captivating to JapaneS
insistence upon an increased ratio owe
the Washington conference the Unite
States has paid again for what wa
supposed to have been paid for in flu
in 1922 For at Washington the Japa
nese accepted the so per cent ratio onl
after the United States had surrendere
the right further to fortify all insula