Further Limitation Possible? the limitation of other warship types, "and attempts to created friction between the ish and French delegates, which inevitably reacted on the relations between their Govern-
8. Move: Dificulties of New Conference" ments, It is doubtful, to In tacking an amendment to the Naval Appropriations Bill for 1924-25, requesting President Coolidge to promote an interna-"conference for the further limitation of naval armaments, the "American House of Representatives has repeated the step took last year.
jo far as one can gather, the wording of the amendment identical with that attached to the previous Naval Bill. On this the Into President Harding, after consulting with his Cabinet, decided to take no action, and it is very improbable that Mr. Coolidge, on his part, will "do more. than "formally acknowledge the amendment, More than once during the past 12 months has been made clear that the move in this de fully recognized at the White House. great many people, confined to the United States, seem to imagine that new canferenes to extend the provisions the Washington Treaty" would be all plain "sailing, Thi, how:
ever, is far from certain, Various chreimstances favoured the success the five great Powers participating, the Washington parley. Of
all were weary of, naval rival, dnd none, with the possible excep: tion of the United States, was capable of bearing. the. financial strain of renewed. competition in fe Yet, even so, it took more than ose months of continuous negotiate tion fo arrive at a settlements and nly partial one at that Battleship. and. aircraft-caryler tonnage -was rationed, but agreement could be reached for construction had conference never taken place, French Attitude.
Anew disarmament treaty, to be effective at all, would have to embrace every type of ship, cluding submarines, Ix it likely that France, for example, would agree to a quota of submarine tonnage which would be acceptable to this country? No one who followed last year's debates in the Paris Chamber on the ratification of the Washington Treaty can doubt the answer. M. Poincaré and other Ministers stated categorieally that France intended to keep her hands entirely free in the matter of minor naval.construction.
The adhesion of Japan to a compact restricting cruisers and submarines is equally problematical. The late Admiral Viscount Kato stated when at Washington that Japanese naval opinion looked these raft as defensive units. Moreover, it is common knowledge that Japan, Conference, has been Great Britain and States together in light cruisers and undersea boats, and is now far in advance of her 3-5-5 Treaty ratio in both: types.
Probably, therefore, "opposition to the restriction of such vessels would be as determined, outspoken, in Japan as Channel.
Finally, there is the question" of bringing all the secondary naval Powers into line, and how thorny a problem this would be has lately been demonstrated by the abortive meeting at Rome, convened under Nations. the auspices of the League of
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.