parently would be at liberty to build either cruisers or submarines to the full maximum tonnage. I should be very grateful if you would let me have the British Government's explanation of this clause in connection with the other provisions of the memorandum. Accept [etc.] FRANK B. KELLOGG 500.A15Franco-British/4: Telegram President Coolidge to the Secretary of State SUPERIOR, WIS., August 2, 1928. [Received August 2.] CALVIN COOLIDGE Please make no commitments concerning limitation of armaments. 500.A15Franco-British/4: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) WASHINGTON, August 2, 1928-6 p. m. 180. I received yesterday from the British Embassy a communication from Sir Austen Chamberlain embodying the understanding reached between Great Britain and France in relation to naval limitation, with the added suggestion that it should be adopted as a basis for discussion by the Preparatory Conference. I have asked the Embassy for the explanation of certain points which I do not fully understand as follows: [Here follows substance of the note of August 2, 1928, to the British Chargé, printed on page 266.] [Paraphrase.] I think it might be well for you to see Chamberlain and discuss with him the various points covered by my inquiry. He will undoubtedly provide you with a copy of the agreement, should you not already have seen it, and I think you might be able through conversation to have more light thrown on the subject than I shall get in writing from the Embassy here. [End paraphrase.] KELLOGG 500.A15Franco-British/6: Telegram The Secretary of State to President Coolidge WASHINGTON, August 3, 1928-9:50 a. m. Of course, I shall make no commitments whatever concerning the limitation of armaments and while abroad shall not even discuss it or any other question. The note which Great Britain sent me suggests a basis for limitation of surface vessels below ten thousand tons armed with guns of more than six inch and up to eight inch calibre and for ocean going submarines over six hundred tons. It makes no suggestion as to total tonnage or ratio. The memorandum is somewhat obscure. After consulting with the Navy, I am simply asking the British Government to explain certain provisions in order that we may discuss it intelligently with the Navy. I am making no suggestions to Great Britain. I have no idea when the next preliminary conference 35 will meet. Probably not until some time late in the Autumn. Will write you fully as soon as I can have further conversation with Navy officials. KELLOGG 500. A15Franco-British/71 The Secretary of State to President Coolidge WASHINGTON, August 3, 1928. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I received your telegram yesterday and, as I wired you, I have no idea of making any commitments to the British or any other Government on the subject of the limitation of armaments. Wednesday I received from the British Government through the British Embassy here the enclosed communication 36 on the subject of the agreement between Great Britain and France. I discussed the matter yesterday and today with officers of the Navy Department, Admirals Long and Scofield and Commander Train, who are familiar with all that took place at the Preliminary Conference during the last two or three years and also the discussions which took place at the Geneva Three Power Conference.37 In the first place, I judge the memorandum to be an attempt to come to an agreement with France on the bases of limitation of naval armament to be submitted to the Preliminary Conference which adjourned some time ago and which is expected to meet again in the Autumn. During the discussions heretofore there has been a wide divergence between the British plan and the French. The French have insisted on what is known as a global tonnage, that is, that the total tonnage of all naval vessels which France might build should be fixed and that France might construct in any class of ships up to that total tonnage while Great Britain insisted that the tonnage must be agreed to as to each class, battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, de 35 i. e., the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference. 80 Note No. 358, July 31, 1928, p. 264. 87 See Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. 1, pp. 1 ff. stroyers and submarines. We took that same position at Geneva. Of course, battleships and aircraft carriers are already provided for so that leaves the other three classes of ships and we insisted, instead of a total tonnage for all three, that there must be a tonnage agreed upon for each class. Our position was the same in the Preliminary Conference, but Admirals Jones and Long, with their experts, had discussed with France a modification of this plan which our Navy officials would have been willing to agree to, which authorized the twenty per cent. variation in the construction of ships of each class— that is, if one was increased, the other should be reduced. I will not go into the details of this because before the Preliminary Conference reassembles, we shall have to examine the whole subject and, of course, present it to you upon your return to Washington. However, after discussing it with the Navy, we thought we ought to ask for some information. You will see from the British note that apparently they propose no limitation for surface vessels, that is, cruisers or destroyers, except those carrying guns of over six inch and up to eight inch calibre. If this is what their understanding is, it would leave all cruisers with six inch guns or less without any limitation at all and no limitation whatever on destroyers which I assume we could not agree to. Also apparently it would permit any country to build all the submarines of six hundred tons or less without any limitation. Of course, the size of submarines vary. Most of them are more than six hundred tons, especially the ocean-going ones. Nevertheless, a six hundred ton submarine can be very effective with a short range of cruising. We shall make no reply to the note at all until we get the British answer and until the whole subject is studied and submitted to you. Of course, I cannot see how we could agree simply to limit cruisers carrying over six inch guns and leave the countries free to construct all the small cruisers they desire armed with guns of six inch calibre or less. In any event, I do not believe the Preliminary Conference would recommend any such proposition to a disarmament conference if there is one ever called. I think, however, that Great Britain is going to try very hard to get some plan to be recommended to a general disarmament conference and officials of the Navy Department are working on the whole subject for the next meeting of the Preliminary Conference. Faithfully yours, FRANK B. KELLOGG 500.A15Franco-British/5: Telegram The Secretary of State to President Coolidge WASHINGTON, August 3, 1928-12:02 p. m. After careful consideration with Admiral Long and others in Navy we asked the British Government what it meant by certain provisions in the tentative agreement as it was sent to the United States requesting an answer and will probably be published soon. We made no commitments in any way but simply asked for the meaning of certain clauses. We wished to know this before the document is published if we could. However, I have written you fully sending you copy of the British memorandum and our request. Will make no more communications without submitting them to you in advance. FRANK B. KELLOGG 500.A15Franco-British/61 President Coolidge to the Secretary of State MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have your wire relative to the British naval proposals. What I desire to have done in relation to these at present is nothing at all. I shall be back in Washington within a few weeks and we can take the matter up at that time. I would not have you even ask the British Government for any explanation of the proposals which they have made. Let the entire matter stand in abeyance. I note that you say, "I shall make no commitments whatever concerning the limitation of armaments and while abroad shall not even discuss it or any other question." That is exactly the correct position, which your good judgment as usual causes you to take. I do not especially like the meeting that is to be held in Paris. 38 While it is ostensibly to sign the treaty, I can not help wonder whether it may not be for some other purpose not yet disclosed. Of course, so far as this Government is concerned, it will neither discuss nor decide any other question of any kind or nature at the Paris meeting. We had a nice visit with Mrs. Kellogg when I went to Cannon Falls, and she and her sister called at the Lodge the day before yesterday. With kindest regards, I am [etc.] CALVIN COOLIDGE "i. e., meeting of the signatories to the treaty for the renunciation of war. 500.A15Franco-British/7 The French Chargé (Sartiges) to the Secretary of State [Translation] WASHINGTON, August 3, 1928. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that the technical conversations entered into between the British and French Naval experts regarding the manner in which limitation of naval armaments might take place have resulted in a draft agreement approved by the two Governments and whose tenor is indicated in this communication. This draft agreement is designed to replace the French compromise proposal submitted in the month of March, 1927, to the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, entrusted with drawing up a draft convention.39 It had become evident during the fifth session of the Commission that this compromise proposal still gave rise to such differences of principle that it would be impossible to obtain a unanimous adhesion to the formulae proposed. It had also become evident during the discussions that a preliminary agreement at least on principles was necessary before the meeting of the Commission, if a second reading of the draft Convention for the Limitation of Armaments was to take place effectively. The conversations were, therefore, renewed between the experts of the British and French Governments and have resulted in the following proposals: The limitations which the Disarmament Conference will have to determine would fix the number of classes of war vessels at four: 1. Line vessels, i. e., vessels of over ten thousand tons or armed with guns of more than eight inch caliber. 2. Aircraft carriers of over ten thousand tons. 3. Surface vessels of or below ten thousand tons armed with guns of more than six inch and up to eight inch caliber. 4. Ocean-going submarines, that is to say, submarines of over six hundred tons. No limitation is provided for vessels not includable in one of these four classes. The Washington Treaty regulated the limitations in classes one and two, and the Disarmament Conference will only have to examine the method of extending these limitations to powers non-signatory to this Treaty. As regards classes three and four the final Disarmament Conference will fix a maximum tonnage applicable to all powers which no * See League of Nations, Documents of the Preparatory Commission, Series IV, p. 361. |