Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-18

of another country, or even by condi-
a wholep Evidently we must fix this
date as that of the period of the con-
ference Of London.
"It is sufficient answer to all this to
retort that 1t was not necessary Tor the
United States to have any treaty. We
were going along well enough after the
failure of the Geneva Conference. We
had authorized our new cruisers and
were proceeding to build them. We
were predioating eur naval program
upon our naval needs as we er1visaged
them and not as they were laid down
for us by other powers. And 1t is sig
nificant to note, Mr.. President, that
following the breakdown of the &C.
neva Conference there was no fever1sh
anxiety in Great Britain for further
naval disarmament until the American
Congress by an overwhelming vote pro-
vided for Is new cruisers. Until then
the British government and the British
naval advisers. were most Indifferent.
But after then the Indifferent British
became very different, and While 1t Is
true that a Labor government succeeded
a Conservative government, I cannot
count that as the moving cause Tor the
British action in summoning the con-
ference at London.
And moreover. Mr.. President. there
was no crying need at all for the as-
seHnbling of this conference this year.
Under the terms of the treaty OF WASH
ington--which so far as we are con-
cerned is the supreme law of the land
provision was definitely made for the
converting of disarmament conference
in 1881. This is a contract among the
signatories of the treaty of Washington.
1t has not been repudiated; 1t is still
in existence, and the chief declaration
of all delegates at the Geneva confer
ence contained these significant words.
Says This Country Conceded.
MY deduction is that each of the
powers signAtory to this treaty pre-
sented its own proposal for the limits
to be set upon naval ornaments. My
further deduction Is that two of these
signatories--Great Britain and Japan
varied their proposals little or none
from the original form in which they
were presented at either London or
Geneva, and that 1t was the United
States which made all the material
concessions. AS a consequence we now
find ourselves so limited in our freedom
of action in naval construction that we
can provide ourselves only with that
size OF" fleet made up of the type of
vessel which the British admiralty per-
Mus US 10 nave. 10 my nina, sir, THIS
Is a piece of colossal effrontery on the
part of those who sat with us at the
London Conference table. It is diff
cult to find a suitable parallel with
which to describe the situation which
confronts us.
"1t is, however. as if you should say
to me, Take your own money and buy
yourself a dozen l3-inch collars To
which light retort that 13-inoh COL
lars do not fit me, that / cannot wear
them and that do not want to spend
any money for them. But you, sir, insist
and 1 am compelled to buy the 13-inch
collars which cannot wear and for
which have no use.
"It is no sufficient argument to point
out that the 6-inch-gun cruiser which
we are permitted to build has a useful
purpose admit that 1t has-for the
British Empire. That power with its
numerous naval bases. with its shorter
trade routes, with its hundreds of mer-
cl1antmen which may be armed over
night, stands In a far different position
from the United States. The total
mileage Of our trade routes, sir, Is today
astounding The total tonnage of our
ocean-borne trade Is gigantic. And 1t
must never be forgotten that the
] primary and constant purpose Of the
American Navy has. been protection of
our trade rather than combatant
strength Of it, 8eet."