Evening star., 1935-07-23
NAVY COMPROMISE
ATTEMPT LIKELY
British Announcement Seen
as Admitting Agreement
to Limit Big Fleets.
BY the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
An attempt to achieve a compro
mise agreement putting limit on the
worlds big navies is foreseeE by many
observers studying disclosures made at
London yesterday.
The British admiralty announced
yesterday that it was abandoning naval
ratios, such as the famous 5-5-3
formula limiting the fighting fleets Of
Great Britain, the United States and
Japan. 1t was indicated Britain
would seek other means of avoiding
the costly naval race which so many
students Of the subject fear.
While American officials declined
any comment on the British announce
ment, observers saw in it material to
build the framework for new limita-
ton conference.
The Washington treaty, which set
up the 5-5-3 ratio in 1922, provides
a conference shall be held in 1885 to
discuss continuance of curbs on sea
power. No naval power has made a
definite move to call the session.
Japan Refused Compromise.
Great Britain did, however. take the
lead in calling preliminary talks in
London last Fall, designed to smooth
the way for the proposed conference.
At those conversations, the British
made overtures for compromise
agreement, which were turned down
by the Japanese.
As the conference ended, a joint
statement by the three sea powers de-
clared the British would take steps
to call another meeting "as soon as
the opportune moment arrives"
Observers here believe Sir Bolton
Eyres- Monsell, first lord of the ad-
miralty, had the compromise in mind
in his remarks yesterday. He said
that while ratios were being discarded
means were being sought to accom-
plish the same result through a sys-
tenn of naval programs which would
provide adequate defense and attempt
to eliminate the offensive type.
An agreement along those lines, OBJ
servers pointed out, would avoid desig-
mating tonnage on a percentage basis.
Because of the inferior ratio assigned
japanese in the Washington treaty
formula that country had complained
vehemently that her national pride
was wounded That was a point fire.
Quently mentioned when Japan abro-
gated the naval treaty. effective De-
cember 81, 1886.
While no one at the State Depart
ment would comment on the London
development, Senator Pittman, Demo-
crat, of Nevada, chairman of the SEN
ate Foreign Relations Committee. said
it was "just another move as constru-
ing treaties only as scraps of paper. >
Neutrality Considered.
Renewed discussion of efforts to in
sure American neutrality In any future
war conceded with the adoption of
an attitude of rigid official silence
toward Great Britain's announce
ment.
Some surprise was apparent at both
the State and Navy Departments, but
no official would comment. President
Roosevelt devoted himself for more
than an hour to the neutrality ques-
ton. 1t was learned authoritatively
afterward that the discussion had
touched upon the possibility of legis-
lation designed to prevent this country
from becoming embroiled in foreign
conflicts. Four bills affecting Ameri-
can interests in wartime are pending.
Present at the White House confer
ence yesterday were William Phillips,
Acting Secretary of State; R. Walton
Moore, Assistant Secretary, who ham
dies neutrality questions in the State
Department, and Norman Davis, row.
ing Ambassador at Large.
Phillips is slated to go before the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommit-
tee on neutrality legislation to present
the Administrations views, probably
this week.
State Department officials said they