Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-07
Text of Presidents Message
Naval Treaty Declared Only Hope of Ending
Expensive Building Rivalry Among
Big Nations.

pleted, $1,000 tons of these major
units, Great Britain, $4,000 tons and
Japan, $4,000 tons. In addition, the
United States will have one 10,000-ton
S-tnch cruiser two-thirds completed.
This will give a ratio in these categories
Of 100 for the United States to 1929
for Great Britain and sos for Japan.
The reason for the excess British ton
mage is again as mentioned above.
In other words, the United States
in these categories, increases by 102, 900
tons, Great Britain decreases by lao. 900
tons and Japan decreases by 10000
tons. These readjustments of units are
to take place during the next years.
The treaty then comes to an end except
for such arrangements as may be made
then for its continuance.
Cruisers Are Considered.
THE major discussion has been di-
rected almost wholly to the fact that
the United States is to have 10 cruisers
with 8-inch guns, with an aggregate
tonnage of 10000 tons, as against Great
Britain'S is such ships, with tonnage
Of 146,800 tons, and Japan's IL such
ships of tonnage of 108,4 400 tons, the
United States supplementing this ton
mage with cruisers armed with 6-inch
guns up to total of 1923, 500 tons, Great
Britain up to $4,000 tons and Japan to
208, 800 tons. The larger gross tonnage
to Great Britain as stated being COM
pensation for the larger gun caliber of
the American cruiser fleet. but, as said,
the United States has the option to
duplicate the British feet if 1t so desires.
Criticism of this arrangement arises
from the fact that the general board of
the United States Navy recommended
that to reach parity with Great Britain
the United States should have three
more Of the 10,000-ton cruisers (21 in
stead of 49,, with 8-inch guns, and q
total OF $4,000 tons or 5000 tons less
total cruiser tonnage than this treaty
provides. Thus this treaty provides that
instead of this $4,000 tons more Of g.
inch ships recommended by the gen.
ships armed with 6-inch guns, there be-
ing no limitation upon the size Of
cruisers up to 10000 tons.
Therefore, criticism reyolveS around
less than 3 per cent of our whole fleet,
and even within this per cent comes
the lesser question of whether 10000
tons of ships armed with 8-inch guns
are better than $4,000 tons armed with
6-inch guns. The opinion of our high
naval authorities is divided on the rela-
tive merits of these alternatives. Many
mage of 6-inch ships is more advantage
Gus and others vice versa. However,
those who seek to make this the out
standing feature of criticism fail to
mention that under the London treaty
the obligation of the Washington arms
treaty of 1921 is so altered that Great
Britain scraps $4,000 tons of battle
ships armed with 13la-inch guns, the
United States scraps 10000 tons of bat
INC gsyff w.ot-
Japan scraps 26,300 tons These ar
rangements are made not only for
reduction OF arms, but to anticipate the
ultimate parity between the United
States and Great Britain in battleships
which would not otherwise be realized
for several years.
Object of Criticism.
"There is in this provision a relative
gain in proportions compared with the
British fleet of $500 tons of battle
ships with l31a-inch guns. This is of
vastly more Importance than the dis
pute as to the relative combatant
strength of $4,000 tons of 6-inch cruis-
ers against 10000 tons of S-inch cruis-
ers. Indeed, it would seem that such
criticisms must be based upon an I'M
disclosed desire to break down all limi-
tation Of arms.
ITO those who seek earnestly and
properly for reduction in warships,
would point out that as compared with
January LIST of this year, the total agre-
gate navies of the three powers under
this treaty will have been reduced by
nearly 100000 tons. Had a settlement
been made at Geneva in 1927 upon the
only proposal possible at that time, the
fleets of the three powers would have
been approximately $50 900 tons greater
than under the treaty now in considera-
ton.
The economic burdens and the diver
sion of taxes from welfare purposes
which would be imposed upon ourselves
and other nations by failure Of this
treaty are worth consideration. Under
its provisions the replacement of bat
tleships required under the Washington
arms treaty Of 1921 is postponed for
six years. The costs of replacing and
maintaining the three strapped battle
ships is saved. Likewise we make econ
omies in construction and operation by
the reduction in our submarine and
destroyer fleets to $4,000 and 100000
tons respectively. What the possible
saving over an otherwise inevitable era
of competitive building would be, no
one can estimate.
Big Savings FOreseen.
IF we assume that our present naval
program, except for this treaty, is to
complete the ships authorized by Con-
greSS and those authorized and neces-
Sary to be replaced under the Washing
ton arms treaty, and to maintain q
destroyer fleet of about 225.OO0 tons
and submarine fleet of 10000 tons,
such fleet will not reach parity with
Great Britain, yet would cost in con-
struction over $500, 900 900 more during
the next six years than the feet pro-
vided under this treaty. But in addi-
zion 70 this, as stated, there is a very
large saving by this treaty in annual
operation of the feet over what would
be the case If we even built no more
than the present programs.
The more selflsh-minded will give
little credence to the argument that
savings by other parties to the agree
ment In the limitation of naval con-
struction are Of interest to the Amer
lean people, yet the fundamental
economic fact is that If the resources
OF these other nations are freed for
devotion to the welfare of their people
and to pacific purposes of Reproductive
commerce, they will result In blessings
to the orld, including ourselves. If
we were to accept the Geneva Confer
ence base as the end of naval strength
under competitive building for the three
governments, the savings In construc-
ton and operation by the treaty is
literally billions of dollars.
Question Is Stated.
The question before us now is not
whether We shall have a treaty with
either three more S-inch cruisers or
four less 6-inch cruisers, or whether we
shall have a larger reduction In ton
mage. 1t is whether we shall have this
treaty or no treaty. It is a question
as to whether we shall move strongly
toward limitation and reduction in