5-5-3 or Squabble?

"The "Naval Limitations Parley* is developing into an Anglo-American struggle for supremacy. . . . Great Britain's attitude reveals her wish to remain the foremost naval power. . . . America says, rather hysterically, that .she will never be content with an inferior navy. . . ."

The three tart sentences just quoted conveyed last week to readers of the Tokyo news organ Nichi Nichi Shinbun a very clear impression of the situation faced by the Japanese Delegation in Geneva. While the U. S. and Britain "struggled," how could their strife be turned to good account by Japanese Chief Delegate Viscount Minoru Saito? Obviously Admiral Viscount Saito ought to cast his influence on one side or the other--after appropriate bargaining. He chose last week the British side.

Treaty at Issue. Strife arose because the British insisted on pushing their thesis that the Washington Treaty of 1922, limiting capital ships of the U. S., Britain and Japan in the famed 5-5-3 ratio, should be modified or at least discussed at the present Parley. The U. S. Chief Delegate, Hugh Simpson Gibson, resisted the British pressure, maintaining that the Parley had been called to extend the 5-5-3 ratio to smaller ships, and not to modify it in any way. Suddenly the Japanese, previously supposed to favor the U. S. position, switched over to support British Chief Delegate the Rt. Hon. William Clive Bridgeman.

Saito Keynotes. When newsgatherers were called into the presence of Viscount Saito, they found him amid the homage and the state which befits a man who has recently received the personal mandate of "The Son Of Heaven," the sublime Tenno (Emperor) Hirohito of Japan. Moreover Admiral Saito is now Governor-General of Korea--a post of almost vice-regal dignity. This very rich, potent and shrewd old man read a statement keynoting on two vital points.

He said that Japan does not desire to foster the 5-5-3 ratio, but rather considers its implications irritating to her amour propre. "We had not thought," said Viscount Saito smoothly, "that the ratio on capital ships should necessarily be extended to auxiliaries." This first point was in itself a polite negation of U. S. aims at the Parley; but the second point squarely supported the British thesis, thus: "The British proposal for reducing the size of capital ships and extending the age limit undoubtedly has merit, proving that it will contribute in no small measure toward the diminution of naval expenditures."

U. S. Rebuttal. Chief Delegate Hugh S.. Gibson was so vexed by this Japanese hint of support to the British that he retorted sharply through the press: "The economic situation [suggested by Viscount Saito] does not arise. It happens that the Washington Treaty expressly provides that no further capital ships are to be laid down until 1931. Therefore premature discussion here of capital ships could not affect the taxpayers' burden for armaments."

Following this exchange, the British were found to be more obdurate than ever in wanting to discuss revision of the Washington Treaty--to the disadvantage of the U. S. Finally Mr. Gibson was obliged to call the U. S. press to his aid, and succeeded in getting widely disseminated a statement made at the U. S. State Department in behalf of U. S. Secretary of State Kellogg: "The United States cannot and will not accept anything short of parity with Great Britain in all classes of ships."

Bridgeman Yields. Although the British proposals had obviously been intended to break down the 5-5 parity between Great Britain and the U. S., the obdurate stand of Messrs. Gibson and Kellogg finally resulted in a statement from the British Delegation that their position had been "misunderstood." Chief British Delegate Bridgeman explained away the point of contention as follows: "Our policy has been to state frankly what are the British requirements, but we never disputed the American claim for parity as established by the Washington Treaty. It is true we think our special needs demand a higher number in certain types of vessels, but we do not deny the right of the United States to build up to an equal figure in any type of warship, if she thought necessary."

Hope of Progress. Although the Parley had been frittering along without definite accomplishment since it first assembled, the various committees of naval experts continued at work last week, and even announced they were all agreed that the maximum size of destroyers shall be in future 1,500 tons, flotilla leaders 1,850. This augured hope of progress; and U. S. Chief Delegate Gibson was moved to say that he thought the Parley might be able to adjourn as early as the first of August.

* Sitting at Geneva, Switzerland, by invitation of U. S. President Coolidge. The U. S,, Britain and Japan are represented by plenary delegations (TIME, June 27, July 4). France and Italy, while not represented, have sent observers.