Disarmament Conference File No. 250/13
Memorandum by the Secretary to the British Empire Delegation of a Meeting of Heads of Delegations Held at the Pan American Union, January 13, 1922, 3 p.m.13a
Secret
- Present:—
- the united states of america
- Mr. Hughes
- Colonel Roosevelt
- Mr. J. R. Clark
- the british empire
- Mr. Balfour
- Rear-Admiral Chatfield
- Mr. H. W. Malkin
- Sir Maurice Hankey
- france
- Admiral De Bon
- Captain Frochot
- M. Camerlynck (Interpreter)
- italy
- Senator Schanzer
- Captain Ruspoli
- japan
- Baron Kato
- Captain Uyeda
- M. Ichihashi (Interpreter)
- the united states of america
The Committee had before them a First Revise of the Draft Naval Treaty (Appendix.)
[Page 220]Mr. Hughes said he had taken the liberty of circulating a fresh draft, to show what had been accomplished.14 He wished, however, to call attention to the fact that Article XXII had not been correctly copied. He had therefore circulated a fresh draft. The best plan would be to take the Articles one by one, and to consider simultaneously with them certain drafting amendments that had been suggested by Mr. Malkin, of the British Delegation.
Mr. Malkin then handed to Mr. Hughes a revised list of the drafting amendments he proposed.
Mr. Hughes thought it advisable to examine even these drafting amendments in the Committee of Heads of Delegations. Verbal alterations often assumed great importance, and if it was merely left to the draughtsmen the work might have to be done all over again by the Heads of Delegations.
preamble.
The Preamble was accepted.
article i.
Admiral de Bon proposed to alter the Article to read as follows, i. e., to add the words “reduce and”:—
“The Contracting Parties agree to reduce and limit their respective naval armaments as provided in the present Treaty.”
He pointed out that the armaments had been reduced a good deal.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that in some cases the limit had been increased; for example, in the case of aircraft carriers.
Mr. Hughes said the word “limit” would provide for this.
Article I was therefore adopted in its original form.
article ii.
Mr. Hughes said that Mr. Malkin had suggested as a slight amendment in the last paragraph to put the words in brackets “(35,560 metric tons)” after the words “35,000 tons”, and to make corresponding alterations throughout the Treaty.
Captain Ruspoli accepted this amendment, and pointed out that the words “standard displacement” referred to the metric tons just as much as to the other tons.
Mr. Hughes questioned whether this was the case.
Admiral Chatfield said there was no doubt about it.
Mr. Malkin’s amendment was adopted, and the words in brackets “(35,560 metric tons)” were inserted after “35,000 tons” instead of following the words “standard displacement”.
It was agreed to delete the foot-note to Article II.
article iii.
Article III was adopted.
[Page 221]article iv.
Mr. Hughes asked whether the words “standard displacement” should not be inserted after the statements of tons for each country?
Admiral Chatfield pointed out that standard displacement was provided for in the second line.
Article IV was adopted.
article v.
Mr. Hughes drew attention to Mr. Malkin’s suggestion to insert in the second line, before “constructed by”, the following words: “acquired by, or constructed by”.
This was accepted, and Article V was adopted in the following form:—
“No capital ship exceeding 35,000 tons, (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers”.
articles vi, vii and viii.
Articles VI, VII and VIII were adopted without amendment.
article ix.
The following amendments, proposed by Mr. Malkin, were adopted:—
- Lines 1 & 2: Move up the words in brackets, “(27,432 metric tons)” to fall between “27,000 tons” and “standard displacement”. After “shall be” insert the words “acquired by, or” before the words “constructed by”.
- Line 7: After “35,00015 tons”, put in brackets “(33,528 metric tons)”.
- Line 10: Delete the word “unfinished” and insert after the word “ships” the following:—“whether constructed or in course of construction”.
- Line 11: Delete the words “in such case” and begin a new paragraph as follows:—“The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) shall be in accordance with” etc., as before.
article x.
Article X was adopted.
article xi.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
- Line 1 & 2: Move up the words in brackets, “(10,160 metric tons)” to come between “10,000 tons” and “standard displacement”.
- Line 3: After the words “shall be”, insert “acquired by, or”.
As the result of a subsequent discussion in relation to the definition of “vessel of war” in Chapter II Part IV, an addition was made to the Article, which now reads as follows:—
“Article XI. No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers, provided that vessels under Government control not specifically built as fighting ships, or taken under Government control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in any other way for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of hostilities other than as fighting ships, shall not be within the limitation of this Article”.
article xii.
Admiral de Bon suggested to add at the end of this paragraph words to the following effect:—“Such dispositions do not concern merchant ships armed with guns”.
Mr. Hughes thought that this would raise difficult and controversial questions and lead to prolonged discussion. He recalled the difficulties at the Conference of London on this subject.17
Admiral de Bon withdrew his amendment.
Article XII was adopted in its original form.
article xiii.
Article XIII was adopted as follows:—
“Except as provided in Article IX no ship designated in the present Treaty to be scrapped may be reconverted into a vessel of war”.
(The words underlined have been added.)
article xiv.
Article XIV was adopted.
article xv.
The following addition was made at the end of the present Article, following a semi-colon:—
“provided, however, that the tonnage displacement for aircraft carriers so constructed shall in no case exceed 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement”.
article xvi.
Article XVI was adopted.
article xvii.
Article XVII, line 4: The following words, which had been omitted through a clerical error, were added at the beginning of this line:—“for any other Power”, so that the whole Article reads as follows:— [Page 223]
“In the event of a Contracting Power being engaged in war, such Power shall not use as a vessel of war any vessel of war which may be under construction within its jurisdiction for any other Power or which may have been constructed within its jurisdiction for another Power and not delivered.”
article xviii.
Article XVIII was adopted.
article xix.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that this was awaiting Baron Kato’s instructions from Japan.
article xx.
An additional sentence was added at the end, after the words “Contracting Powers”, on the suggestion of Mr. Malkin, so that the Article now reads as follows:—
“The rules for determining tonnage displacement prescribed in Chapter II, Part 5,17a shall apply to the ships of each of the Contracting Powers. The expression ‘standard displacement’ is used in the present Treaty in the sense defined in Chapter II, Part 5”.
chapter ii, part 1.
Mr. Hughes said that the suggestion had again been made to him that the paragraphs between the lists of tonnage should be done away with. He wished to know what was the precise reason for retaining them.
Admiral Chatfield, to explain the point, said it was necessary to refer to the definition of “standard displacement” in Chapter II Part 4, where it was stated that “vessels now completed shall retain their present ratings of displacement tonnage in accordance with their national system of measurement”. The paragraphs referred to were the only part of the Treaty where the total tonnage according to the national system of measurement was given. He thought, therefore, it was important to retain these paragraphs.
Mr. Hughes agreed, and the proposal was accepted by the Committee.
The following amendments were adopted on the second page of Part 1:—
The short statement following the list of ships to be retained by France was amended as follows:—“France may lay down new tonnage in the years 1927, 1929, and 1931 as provided in Part 3 Section 2.”
A corresponding alteration was made in the note following the list of ships to be retained by Italy.
Corrections were made in the spelling of the Italian capital ships.18
[Page 224]chapter ii, part 2.
Mr. Malkin suggested that in the third line the word “and” should be “or”.
Mr. Hughes said that this was really a case of “and/or”, but he thought it would be better to stick to the word “and”.
This was agreed to.
paragraph i.
On the suggestion of Admiral de Bon, the following words were deleted:—before the word “combatant” delete the word “the”, and after the word “use” delete “for which it was originally designed”: so that Article I19 reads as follows:—
“A vessel to be scrapped must be placed in such condition that it cannot be put to combatant use”.
paragraph ii (c).
- Line 2: For “paragraph IV” put “paragraph III”.
- Line 5: Before the words “paragraph 7” insert the word “except”.
- Line 6: After the words “capital ship” delete the words “is to” and insert the word “may”.
paragraph ii (d).
Mr. Hughes read the following draft addition proposed by the French and Italian Delegations in accordance with the arrangement made on the previous day:—
“Out of the capital ships due for scrapping from the year 1931, France and Italy may each retain two sea-going vessels for training purposes (gunnery and torpedo school); the two vessels kept by France to be of the ‘Jean Bart’ Class, and for Italy one to be the ‘Dante Alighieri’, the other of the ‘Giulio Cesare’ Class. France and Italy undertake not to use those ships any more as vessels of war, their conning-towers having to be removed and destroyed”.
Mr. Hughes then re-drafted the actual wording, and the Article was adopted in the following form:—
“Annex B20 II (d). Of the capital ships which would otherwise be scrapped under this Treaty in or after the year 1931, France and Italy may each retain two sea-going vessels for training purposes exclusively, that is, as gunnery or torpedo schools: the two vessels retained by France shall be of the ‘Jean Bart’ Class, and of those retained by Italy one shall be the ‘Dante Alighieri’, the other of the ‘Giulio Cesare’ Class. On retaining these ships for the purpose above stated, France and Italy respectively undertake to remove and destroy the conning-towers of the said ships and not to reserve (?)21 them as vessels of war”.
annex b,22 paragraph iii (a).
Line 2: For “paragraph II” insert “Article IX”.
For “designated” put “due”.
paragraph iii (b) (7).
At end, insert the word “and”.
Subject to the above amendments, Annex B,22 Paragraph III was accepted.
annex b,22 paragraph iv (a).
The Article was slightly amended to read as follows, the words underlined being altered from the original:—
“In the case of vessels to be scrapped under the first paragraph of Article II of the present Treaty, the work of rendering the vessels incapable of further warlike service, in accordance with Paragraph IV23 of this Part, shall be completed within six months from the coming into force of the Treaty, and the scrapping shall be finally effected within eighteen months from such coming into force”.
paragraph iv (b).
This was adopted.
part iii, section 1 (a) (b).
Throughout this Article it was agreed that the metric tons should immediately follow the other tons, and that the words “standard displacement” should be substituted for “standard measurement”: that is to say, the second line should read as follows:—
| “United States | 525,000 tons (533,30024 metric tons) standard displacement”. |
All the corresponding lines to be amended accordingly.
In (b), line I, the word “replacement” should be in the singular, instead of “replacements”. Last line: for “82,295 metric tons” read “82,296 metric tons”.
section 1, paragraph (c).
Part III, Section 1, Paragraph (c) was amended slightly to read as follows, the altered words being underlined:—
“Capital ships and aircraft carriers twenty years after the date of their completion may, except as otherwise provided in the Tables in Section 2 of this Part, be replaced by new construction, but within the limits prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Section. The keels of such new construction may, except as otherwise provided in the Tables in Section 2 of this Part, be laid down not earlier [Page 226] than seventeen years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be replaced; provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage, with the exception of the ships referred to in the third paragraph of Article II in Chapter I, and the replacement tonnage specifically mentioned in Section 2 of this Part, shall be laid down until ten years from the date of the coming into force of this Treaty”.
part iii, section 1 (d).
Part III, Section 1 (d) was adopted without amendment.
part iii, section 1 (e).
- Paragraph 4, the first line, should read:—“The standard displacement in tons and metric tons”.
- Paragraph 5, the first two lines were amended to read as follows:—“The date of completion of each new ship and its standard displacement in tons and metric tons”.
part iii, section 1 (f).
The following words at the beginning were omitted:—“While this Treaty remains in force”; and at the end the word “correspondingly” was deleted and the following words were inserted:—“to that extent”.
part iii, section 1 (g).
This Article was amended to include certain suggestions made by Mr. Hughes and adopted on the previous day, and in addition certain minor alterations underlined were accepted:—
“No retained25 capital ships or aircraft carriers shall be reconstructed except for the purpose of25 providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, subject to the following rules.25 The Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air-attack deck protection, provided the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons)* displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted except (a) in the case of France and Italy, which countries within the limits allowed for bulge may increase their armour protection and the calibre of the guns now carried on their existing capital ships so as not to exceed 16 inches (406 millimetres) and (b) the British Empire shall be permitted to complete, in the case of the Renown, the alterations to armour that have already been commenced but temporarily suspended”.
annex b,26 part iii, section 2.
The Tables of Replacement and Scrapping of Capital Ships were adopted, subject to the following minor amendments:—
[Page 227]Table for France. In the last column, opposite “1930” after “1” put the following words, taken from the corresponding column in the Italian list:—“Within tonnage limitations”.
In lieu of Notes 1 and 2, substitute a Note similar to that at the end of the Italian list, as follows:—
Note: France expressly reserves the right of employing the capital ship tonnage allotment as she may consider advisable; subject solely to the limitations that the displacement of individual ships should not surpass 35,000 tons, and the total capital ship tonnage should keep within the limits imposed by above Table.
This alteration was adopted on the suggestion of Admiral De Bon.
At the end of these Tables it was agreed to insert the following Note applicable to all the Tables:—
The order above prescribed in which ships are to be scrapped is in accordance with their age.
It is understood that when replacement begins according to the above Tables, the order of scrapping in the case of the ships of each of the Contracting Powers may be varied at its option, provided, however, that each Power shall scrap in each year the number of ships above stated.
The above Note, which was based on an earlier American draft, was substituted for a draft proposed by Admiral Chatfield, who explained that the object was to enable a Power to select for scrapping a ship of later type and to substitute it for the vessel specified in the list. For example, a ship of later type might have sustained some serious accident, and it might be more economical to scrap it and to retain the earlier vessel.
annex b,27 part 4. definitions.
The first paragraph was amended to read as follows:—
“For the purposes of the present Treaty, the following expressions are to be understood in the senses defined in this Part.
Vessel of War.”
Mr. Hughes said the American Delegation had wished to leave out the words “Vessel of War”, and had substituted the paragraph in the Draft.
Mr. Balfour said that his experts wished to leave out the definition of “Fleet auxiliary”.
Colonel Roosevelt said he thought it would be necessary to retain this, otherwise it might be found that a fleet auxiliary would be limited by the terms of the Treaty to 10,000 tons, and this was considered undesirable.
[Page 228]Admiral Chatfield said that, so far as he could make out, a fleet auxiliary at the present time was not a vessel of war. The last attempt to reach an international definition of “Vessel of War” had been at the Hague Conference in 1907,28 when Lord Reay29 had proposed a definition of a “vessel of war”. This had failed to be agreed on as he had included in his definition the question of conversion of ships on the high seas. Nor was agreement reached when the definition of “fleet auxiliaries” was proposed, owing to difficulties in connection with the question of “unneutral service”. Suppose Great Britain were at war and wished to send a ship to bring oil from a neutral America, under the definition as proposed that oiler might be treated as a Fleet auxiliary and would not be allowed to enter a port, or, if so, only remain for 24 hours.
Colonel Roosevelt considered that the whole Article was governed by the first words, “For the purpose of this Treaty”.
Admiral Chatfield pointed out that, even so, the adoption of a definition would have a very serious bearing on any future attempt to define a fleet auxiliary by international law.
Mr. Hughes said that the American Delegation was very unwilling to attempt to define a “vessel of war”. They had not wished, however, to get into the difficulty explained by Admiral Chatfield. They had only wished to extricate themselves from the application of the tonnage limit to fleet auxiliaries. To surmount the difficulty, he proposed to make an addition to Article XI. (See the alteration to Article XI referred to above.30)
Admiral Chatfield suggested it might also be necessary to alter Articles XII and XIII.
Mr. Malkin drew attention to Articles XVI and XVII.
Any amendments to these Articles, however, were considered unnecessary.
definition of “standard displacement”.
The definition of “Standard Displacement” was amended, on the suggestion of Mr. Malkin, to read as follows:—
“The standard displacement of a ship is the displacement of the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board.
The word ‘ton’ in the present Treaty, except in the expression ‘metric ton’, shall be understood to mean a ton of 2,240 lbs. (1,016 kilos).”
The remainder of the definition was unaltered.
[Page 229]chapter iii. Miscellaneous provisions.
article xxi.
The last line but one, after the word “changes”, insert the words “if any”, which had been omitted by clerical error.
article xxii.
Mr. Hughes explained that mistakes had been made in copying this article, which should read as follows:—
“Whenever any Contracting Power shall become engaged in a war which in its opinion affects the naval defence of its national security, such Power may, after notice to the other Contracting Powers, suspend for the period of hostilities its obligations under the present treaty other than those under Articles XIII and XVII, provided that such Power shall declare to the other Contracting Powers that the emergency is of such a character as to require such suspension.
The remaining Contracting Powers shall in such case consult together with a view to agreement as to what temporary modifications, if any, should be made in the treaty as between themselves. Should such consultation not produce agreement, duly made in accordance with the Constitutional methods of the respective Powers, any one of the Contracting Powers may, by giving notice to the other Contracting Powers, suspend for the period of hostilities its obligations under the present Treaty other than those under Articles XIII and XVII. On the cessation of hostilities the Contracting Powers will meet in conference to consider what modifications, if any, should be made in the provisions of the present Treaty”.
Mr. Balfour raised a question he had mentioned on the previous day as to whether it would not be advisable in line 6 to insert the word “active” before the word “hostilities”. If this were not done, a Power might perhaps still take advantage of a mere technical continuation of war, when there was no active fighting, to suspend the Treaty.
Mr. Hughes said he had no very great objection. He pointed out, however, that every Power would in reality determine the question for itself. Each Power was really put on its conscience to carry out this Article honourably. It was conceivable, however, that quite slight hostilities might be important, for a Power might feel that it was really menaced even though active hostilities were not in progress. Hence each Power must really be its own judge. To amend the Article as proposed by Mr. Balfour might be a two-edged weapon. If the Senate of the United States thought that the action of America would be fettered in time of war, the passage of the Treaty would not have a ghost of a chance. Anything that tended that way, therefore, was bad. In the last resort each Power must judge the question for itself if it became a belligerent. Very little advantage, therefore, would be gained by the amendment, and it might give an argument against the Treaty.
[Page 230]Mr. Balfour said he would not press the point.
The Article was adopted as stated above.
article xxiii.
At the end of the first paragraph, instead of the phrase “The notice shall take effect on that date”, it was agreed to substitute “The notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall take effect on that date.”
article xxiv.
Line 7: For the term “deposit of ratification” put “the deposit of ratifications”.
Mr. Hughes said that Mr. Malkin’s proposals had been very helpful.
Admiral de Bon asked if it was clear that the English and French texts were both considered as authentic?
Mr. Hughes said the same formula had been used as in previous Treaties. He said he proposed to prepare a revise of the Treaty and circulate it. The Draft Treaty was now ready, except for Paragraph [Article] XIX, which awaited Baron Kato’s instructions from Japan.
Mr. Balfour said that he also was awaiting instructions in regard to the two capital ships Colossus and Collingwood, which had been converted into boys’ training ships.
Mr. Hughes noted this. He said he thought it would be advisable to leave the following day free for the continuation of the discussions on Shantung,31 which were making some progress. He would therefore propose no further meeting of any of the Committees of the Conference until Monday next. He asked permission to notify his colleagues as to what would be the best order of business on Monday.
The Conference adjourned at 5–15 p.m.
- No agreed official minutes of this meeting were made. The American delegation used the memorandum prepared by Sir Maurice Hankey.↩
- The words printed in italics were inserted on the file copy by Mr. Clark.↩
- Should read “33,000”.↩
- For papers relating to the Conference of London, which was held Dec. 4, 1908–Feb. 26, 1909, see Foreign Relations, 1909, pp. 294–336.↩
- i. e., concluding paragraphs of chapter II, part 4.↩
- i. e., “Conti Di Cavour” was corrected to “Conte Di Cavour”, and “Leonardo Di Vinci” to “Leonardo Da Vinci”.↩
- i. e., paragraph I.↩
- i. e., chapter II, part 2.↩
- Mr. Hughes may have said “preserve”. In the treaty as signed, p. 256, this passage reads “and not to use the said ships as vessels of war.”↩
- i. e., chapter II, part 2.↩
- i. e., chapter II, part 2.↩
- i. e., chapter II, part 2.↩
- The change from “paragraph III” to “paragraph IV” appears to be an error; the change was reversed in the treaty as signed, p. 257.↩
- Should read “533,400.”↩
- Although these words are underscored in this memorandum, the changes which they represent had been adopted on the previous day.↩
- Although these words are underscored in this memorandum, the changes which they represent had been adopted on the previous day.↩
- Although these words are underscored in this memorandum, the changes which they represent had been adopted on the previous day.↩
- The word “standard” was omitted here at the suggestion of Admiral De Bon. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- i. e., chapter II.↩
- i. e., chapter II.↩
- For papers relating to this Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. 2, pp. 1099–1287.↩
- Member of the British delegation to the Hague Conference.↩
- Ante. p. 221.↩
- For papers relating to this subject, see pp. 339 ff. and 934 ff.↩
- In the place of Erin, subject to concurrence of Main Committee. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- i.e., concluding paragraphs of chapter II, part 4.↩
- For corrections in spelling, see p. 223.↩
- For corrections in spelling, see p. 223.↩
- See p. 224.↩
- See p. 225.↩
- 2 West Virginia Class.↩
- 2—35,000 ton ships standard displacement.↩
- Should read “Giulio Cesare.”↩
- i. e., in this part.↩