President Proposes

"The time has come when we should ait through the brush!"

Thus President Hoover, with an engineer's contempt for diplomatic mincing around the brush, called on the Geneva Conference last week to hurry up and do something to justify its long French name: La conference pour la limitation et la reduction des armements.

Since it first met under League of Nations auspices five months ago, la conference has succeeded only in banishing Depression from Geneva bars, hotels, shops, theatres and night clubs (to which the Japanese delegates usually escort blondes). Fortnight ago the Conference and its committees actually adjourned (TIME, June 27). The Conference's disgruntled president, "Uncle Arthur" Henderson of England, was forced to announce that "private conversations" among the Great Powers would go on & on at Geneva until the Conference could reassemble "with reasonable prospects of success."

Suddenly all Geneva was galvanized by news that Washington had a message for the world. Flustered Mr. Henderson called the adjourned Conference back into being. Spectators swarmed buzzing into the galleries. In the press box newshawks hunched forward, fastened their eyes upon the rostrum. When U. S. Ambassador to Belgium Hugh S. Gibson cleared his throat and ruffled his papers, they scribbled that he "looked nervous," mentioned "his snow-white hair, though he is only 48.

Plunging into his speech, Ambassador Gibson began: "I am desired by the President of the United States to communicate to the Conference the text of a statement which he is giving out at this moment. It is his hope that the public statement of such a program will fire the imagination of the world. . . ."

"Reduce by One-Third." In Washington an hour-and-a-quarter earlier. President Hoover had read his program with fire and fervor to a small group of correspondents specially called to the White House at 9:15 a. m. (see p. 9). Rarely has Mr. Hoover read with so much heart in his voice.

"The time has come," the Engineer President said, "to adopt some broad and definite method of reducing the overwhelming burden of armament which now lies upon the toilers of the world. This would be the most important world step that could be taken to expedite economic recovery! . . .

"I propose that the following principles should be our guide:

"First--The Kellogg-Briand pact, to which we are all signatories, can only mean that the nations of the world have agreed that they will use their arms solely for defense.

"Second--Reduction should be carried out not only by broad general cuts in armaments but by increasing the comparative power of defense through decreases in the power of the attack.

"Third--The armaments of the world have grown up in general mutual relation to each other, and, speaking generally, such relativity should be preserved in making reductions.

"Fourth--The reductions must be real and positive. They must effect economic relief.

"Fifth--There are three problems to deal with--land forces, air forces and naval forces. They are all interconnected. No part of the proposals which I make can be disassociated one from the other.

"Based on these principles, I propose that the arms of the world should be reduced by nearly one-third!"

Abolish Bombing! As expounded in detail by the President, his proposal stresses not only reduction but abolition as a guiding principle in Disarmament. Thus he called for "abolition of all tanks, all chemical warfare and all large mobile guns."

"All bombing planes should be abolished," continued Mr. Hoover. "This . . . should be coupled with the total prohibition of all bombardment from the air."

Recalling that 100,000 troops are "deemed appropriate for the maintenance of order" among 65,000,000 Germans, the President urged all nations to adopt the existing ratio of troops to population in the Central Powers as the basis for determining the "police component" of all nations.

"I propose furthermore," said Mr. Hoover, "that there should be a reduction of one-third in strength of all land armies over & above the so-called police component!" "I propose," the President went on, "that the treaty number and tonnage of battleships shall be reduced by one-third; that the treaty tonnage of aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers shall be reduced by onefourth; that the treaty tonnage of submarines shall be reduced by one-third, and that no nation shall retain a submarine tonnage greater than 35,000."

Finally Mr. Hoover summed up the question of naval ratios thus: "The relative strength in naval arms in battleships and aircraft carriers, as between the five leading naval powers, was fixed by the Treaty of Washington. The relative strength in cruisers, destroyers and submarines was fixed, as between the United States, Great Britain and Japan, by the Treaty of London. For the purposes of this proposal, it is suggested that the French and Italian strength in cruisers and destroyers be calculated as though they had joined in the Treaty of London on a basis approximating the so-called accord of March i, 1931."

Tersely the President wound up: "These proposals are simple and direct! ... It is folly for the world to go on breaking its back over military expenditures."

Sneers, Cheers, Hubbub-- In Geneva dapper, snowy-crested Ambassador Gibson amplified and emphasized his reading of the President's proposal by adding: "In our most powerful arm, the Navy, we are prepared as part of this general program to scrap more than 300,000 tons of existing ships and to forego the right to build more than 50,000 tons. In land material our proposal would affect more than 1,000 heavy mobile guns, approximately 900 tanks, and, in aviation, about 300 bombing airplanes."

Even this dramatic offer drew only perfunctory Conference applause as Mr. Gibson left the tribune. He was followed by icy Sir John Simon, British Foreign Secretary. "The object of this Conference," Sir John witheringly observed, "is to induce agreement. Agreement is not to be obtained by unilateral statement but by cooperation, by give & take."

Next that great French lawyer, Maitre Joseph Paul-Boncour, Minister of War, had his say. "The Hoover plan is eminently clear, direct and simple," he purred. "It is perhaps too simple, Messieurs. . . . My Government still maintains its policy of first obtaining guarantees that the security of France will not be threatened" [i. e. the old French slogan: "Security before Disarmament"].

Speaking for Soviet Russia, roly-poly Foreign Minister Maxim Maximovitch Litvinov reminded the Conference that more than four years ago he proposed "complete disarmament" (TIME, Dec. 5, 1927). Having been cut at the present Conference by all the U. S. Delegates, Comrade Litvinov enjoyed smirking: "My Government favors complete disarmament, it favors partial disarmament, it favors qualitative, quantitative and real disarmament of every kind." (That day U. S. Delegate Senator Swanson so far unbent as to chat for two minutes with Red Litvinov.)

Following the Russian, up stood Ger man Delegate Rudolf Nadolny to hail President Hoover's "wise proposals" and express his "particular joy."

Glumly after the joyful German, Japan's Tsuneo Matsudalra arose to object, "In devising any new schemes . . . full preliminary exchange of views should take place among the powers directly interested."

Suddenly, just as the Hoover program was becoming snagged and snarled, handsome Dino Grandi, Foreign Minister of Italy, stood up, spoke a few crisp words, drew thunderous applause and gallery cheers.

"Mr. President and Gentlemen," cried Signer Grandi, "I have been able to communicate to the head of my government the contents of President Hoover's message and wish to make the following brief statement: Italy accepts entirely and in all its parts the disarmament plan submitted by the American Delegation!"

When the hubbub had died down, and as the session neared its close, President "Uncle Arthur" Henderson beamingly voiced his hope that all delegations would speedily "report" on the Hoover proposal to the Conference.

"Report is the wrong word," cut in icy Sir John Simon.

"If 'report' is the wrong word," said Mr. Henderson, keeping his temper, "permit me to observe that I am merely the President of this Conference and am left out of the conversations."

(In the last British election "Uncle Arthur" Henderson led the Labor Party to its most disastrous defeat [TIME, Nov. 9], lost even his own House of Commons seat and has no position today except President of the Conference--a post to which he was elected before he fell from power.)

Reactions by nations to the Hoover proposal were:

In France, despite editorial screams of rage from news-organs of the Right* and Right Centre, the Socialist Party led by Leon Blum strongly favored the Hoover proposals and so did La Republique, news-organ of Premier Herriot's own Radical Socialist Party. Should they stand together the Radical Socialists and Socialists would have to pick up only an additional handful of votes to force French acceptance of the proposals, but M. Herriot hesitated to join forces with M. Blum, knowing that on other issues the Socialists will not support him, that to keep his Cabinet from being defeated he must curry favor with the Right. On a quick dash up to Paris last week Premier Herriot appeared worried and irresolute, said that the "chief fault" of the President's proposal is that it "attributes certain effectives to nations A, B and C, but what would happen if A and B should join against C? . . . I have read and reread President Hoover's message and I shall reread it many times again."

In Great Britain the entire Press, except one or two die-hard mouthpieces of the Army & Navy, hailed the President's proposal with acclaim. It was promptly endorsed by the Labor Party (Opposition). The Government remained noncommittal, however, even after Sir John Simon had returned from Switzerland and conferred at length with Acting Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, Leader of the Conservative Party which has a huge majority in Parliament.

In Japan the Foreign Office spokesman said bluntly that the "main reason" why his Government would have none of the Hoover proposals last week was the refusal of Washington to assent to what Japan has done in Manchuria. I ask you to remember," said Japanese War Minister Lieut.-General Sadao Araki, tut-tutting the Hoover proposals, "that the Japanese troops are a strictly disciplined force and perform their duties with as little harmfulness as possible."

Italy and 25 Minor Nations stood squarely behind the President and only the fact that the Conference had been hastily adjourned over the week-end prevented the 25 little fellows from making pro-Hoover speeches. On the other hand Poland (stanch ally of France) was frankly and flatly anti-Hoover, more so than Premier Herriot himself. Throughout Europe a belief grew (and U. S. State Department denials did not down it) that President Hoover was secretly offering a "gentleman's agreement" to the Great Powers.

This agreement was supposed to link Reparations with Disarmament, President secretly agreeing to cancellation of a great part of what Europe owes the U. S. in return for European adoption of his disarmament proposals. If there was such a "gentleman's agreement" last week it is invalid. Congress has tied the Administration's hands, explicitly forbidding cancellation of another cent (TIME, Dec. 3) Congress might reverse itself, but public opinion throughout Europe seemed firmly and dangerously credulous of the "gentleman's agreement."

Puff. Representing 29 U. S. peace-promoting organizations. Mrs Laura Puffer Morgan called on Ambassador Gibson at Geneva, gave the President's proposals a thoroughgoing puff.

*Unkindest was the cut of L'Echo De Paris's famed "Pertinax" (Andre Geraud): "Mr. Hoover who is perhaps within a few months of political ruin ... is sticking at nothing to restore his fortunes." Japanese editors also struck the sour note that the President's proposals were mere electioneering. Icy and astute, Sir John Simon steered the British Press away from this cheap and ineffective sneer by summoning to his hotel all the British correspondents in Geneva. "I implore you," he said, "to give no emphasis to the possible bearing of Mr. Hoover's proposals on the coming presidential election."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.