Incompatibility

The proposals of the U. S. and British delegations at the Three Power Naval Limitations Parley in Geneva (TIME, June 27 et seq.) seemed last week like the statements of a man and wife who love each other at heart but have decided to get a divorce on the ground called "incompatibility of temperament."

Accord existed between the parties on fundamental points. 1) The right of the U. S. and Great Britain to naval parity with each other was conceded. 2) These nations were agreed upon a rough working figure at which parity in tonnage could be struck.

The whole "incompatibility of temperament" thus resolved into a quarrel about what size and number of ships should be allotted to each nation within the agreed tonnage.*

Although this disagreement was of a technical kind, the points on which deadlock had been reached were understood by all (TIME, July 18) and so there remained last week only three possible courses to pursue: 1) dissolution of conference; 2) postponement; 3) a yielding by one side or the other to permit agreement.

Some idea of the large issue at stake was embodied last week in an address to the House of Commons by that discerning Liberal statesman, Lieutenant Commander Honorable Joseph Montague Kenworthy. He pictured a naval race between Britain and the U. S., similar to that between Britain and Germany prior to the World War. Said Commander Kenworthy portentously :

"We may be at the beginning of a situation with the United States similar to that begun with Germany in 1903. It took twelve years for the seed then sown to germinate. Seed may be in the process of sowing at this moment in Switzerland. I hope not, but there is need for great patience on all sides."

Patience was not shown last week by the delegations at Geneva. On the contrary their members seemed weary of negotiation and content to let the Parley gutter out at the forthcoming third plenary session. Meanwhile the chief hope for accord seemed to lie in an agreement between U. S. President Calvin Coolidge and British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, now in Canada (see COMMONWEALTH). When this project was broached by newsgatherers to Mr. Baldwin he said:

"This is the first time I have heard of such a thing and I do not think it is at all likely. . . .

"Should the Disarmament Conference have unhappy results, I assure you it will not be the fault of the British delegates."

Only war boats other than capital ships and aircraft carriers (which are limited by the Washington Treaty) were placed within the scope of this Parley.