Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-13
Parity.

Secretary Stinson, head of the Ameri-
can delegation to the London Naval Con-
ference, has described parity" between
the navies of America and Great Britain
as equality in naval strength" 1t is both
fair and a practical Interpretation. And
especially Is it practical. Appearing be-
fore the Senate foreign relations COM
mittee yesterday the Secretary Of State
began his statement In explanation Of
the London naval treaty now before the
committee for consideration. Efforts
have been made, both in this country
parity" the agreement on all categories
of naval vessels as between the two ma
lions, is not fair. Quite naturally Mr.
Stimson has undertaken to disabuse the
minds of Americans on this subject. At
the Washington Conference Charles
Evans Hughes, then Secretary of State
and now Chief Justice, laid down the
principle that in seeking to Ak ratios
for the naval powers it was necessary to
take into consideration the existing
naval strength of each power-not the
strength to which that power might
have built had it so desired. 1t was
practical method of dealing with vital
question. The decision to deal with the
question of parity" between America
and Great Britain at London by using
actual naval strength rs yardstick
was equally practical.
American critics of the London naval
treaty have sought to show that the
treaty Is not fair to the United States
and favors Britain because 1t limits the
number of ten-thousand-ton cruisers
which the United States may build and
because it provides for the construction
of a number of smaller cruisers by this
country. They argue that the United
States as compared to Great Britain,
has few naval bases and coaling sta
tons and therefore needs cruisers Of
greater sailing radius. Britain, they
maintain, can meet her naval needs
with the smaller cruisers because Of her
many bases, scattered around the world.
The treaty as a matter of fact author
ICES the United States to build eighteen
of these ten-thousand-ton cruisers.
Britain is allotted fifteen Of the larger
cruisers and more tonnage In the smaller
although Britain may, If she sees
fit later, come to eighteen ten-thousand-
ton cruisers and reduce the number OF
the total tonnage of smaller cruisers
until it equals the tonnage allotted the
United States. In every way this ap-
pears to be reasonable adjustment.
Mr.. Stimson pointed out that if other
problems than actual naval strength
we're taken into consideration in arriving
at parity between the navies OF
America and Britain, including the
naval bases of Britain, other issues
would be raised properly by the British.
They would be able to argue, he said,
that the problem of naval defense for
the United States with its great pro-
duction Of all essentials, including food,
Is a vastly different affair from the
problem of naval defense Of Britain,
which Is insular, without the power OF
producing food necessary for the people
Of the United Kingdom. Britain also
has powerful neighbors at her back door
and America has not.
The United States is entitled to naval
parity with Britain in any agreement
that may be reached limiting naval
strength. It is a principle that has
been freely accorded by the British
government. The American delegation
has brought back to this country a
treaty which gives that parity. 1t will
be for Congress and the President to
see that this country builds up to such
parity. The treaty is opposed by those
who are against any naval limitation,
believing that this Nation should be
left to build as large feet as 1t deems
without regard to the wishes
or fears Of others. Yet his country has
and signed treaty which re-
nounces war as q means of settling in
ternational disputes. The time has not
come, and probably never will come,
when navies will be done away with.
But the building of greater and greater
navies can only result in creating sus-
picion and fear and in destroying that
international confidence which is neces-
sary to continuance of international