Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-13
NAVAL PACT FACING.
SENATE OPPOSITION
BEFORE APPROVAL.
Republicans, However, Ex-
pect Ratification in Spite of
Big Fleet Advocates.
ALLEN DECLARES TREATY
PRESIDENTS BEST ACTION
Many Members of Upper House
Noncommittal on Stand to
Be Taken on Issue.
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.

> The new naval limitation treaty, soon
to be signed in London, faces fight
when it is presented to the Senate for
ratification. It's ratification, however
/ was predicted last night by Senator FeSs
Of Ohio, Senator Allen of Kansas and
others.
Senator Tess, a member of the foreign
relations committee which will handle
the treaty, declared that he believed the
treaty would be approved by the Senate
by a large vote. It requires two-thirdS
vote of the Senate for ratification:
Senator Allen referred to the treaty
as the chest achievement of the Hoover
administration" to date. He said that
its terms meant real reduction in ex-
penditureS for naval armament, both In
this country and abroad: that the treaty
in effect strengthened the Kellogg pact
renouncing war and that it would make
for world peace.
The Kansas Senator, however, adj
n1itted that the treaty would be at
tackled by the big navy supporters.
Natural Opposition.
SIT is natural that it should be op;:
posed by big-navy advocates" SAID
Senator Allen. "They would oppose any
agreement proposing to limit the size o.
the Navy"
Senator Allen expressed the view that
the country generally would approve
heartily the naval limitation treaty,
which gives the. United States parity
with Great Britain.
Opponents of the treaty were loaCn 10
be quoted at this time. One Eepunll-
can Senator, however, who does not pc
jncictQH
would never be ratified by the Senate.
This Senator took the view that the
treaty provided for the United States
merely the "kind of a navy that Great
Britain wishes US to have, not the KIND
of navy that meets the needs OF the
United States" He argued this was
true because the United States NEEDS
more 1O,000-ton cruisers armed Will
8-inch guns than the treaty authorizes.
Great Britain, because OF her many
naval bases and coaling stations, can
meet her naval needs WIN smaai ICE
cruisers armed with 6-inch guns, ne
said.
Another argument advanced by the
opponents of the treaty is that TOO
great concessions have been MADE 10
.Iapan. bringing about naval ratio De-
tween the United States, Britain ana
japan of 1O-10-7 instead of the 5-o-3
ratio agreed upon at the washington
Naval Conference in 1922.
And still a third objection is found
in the proposal that Britain be permit
ted to increase the size OF its Meet
France, for example, begins to tread on
British toes by constructing large
fleet The United States under Such
conditions, it Is argued, would be COM
PEELED either to accept an 1nferlorlty In
naval tonnage to Great Britain, or 70
continue building cruisers OF the size
and armament which the United states
does not require.
Stand Toward Japan.
"what." asked this Senator, will the
Pacific Coast say to this treaty." It
was evident he believed the Pacific
Coast would turn thumbs down because
of the agreement with the japanese.
Senator Borah, chairman OF the Tor.
eirn relations committee, said he woulo
NOT comment on the treaty until he has
its terms all before him. 1t Is no secret.
however, that Senator Borah is pleaSeo
with the fact that the treaty VIII carry
no consultative pact" or any other po-
1itical commitment along with it. The
Idaho Senator has bsen strong advo-
cate of naval limitation, and more par
ticularly of naval reduction. He was
the originator of the proposal, carried IN
the naval appropriation bill passed III
1921. which called upon the President
, to take steps for a naval limitation con-
Ference, the plan which was later car
ried out by President Harding. For
ti1at reason, the opinion has been ex-
pressed in some quarters that Senator
Borah eventually would be found sup
porting the London treaty, particularly
As it now carries no political commit
1oeYfs Involving this country with Euro
mean affairs. If Senator Borah should
be opposed to the treaty, it would be
because 1t has not gone far enough in
the matter of reduction of ornaments.
Senator Shipstead Of Minnesota,
Farmer Labor, member Of the foreign
relations committee. said, too, that he
wished to have all the details OF tie
treaty at hand before he decided
Continued on Page 2, Column A.