500.A15 a 1/499: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
126. Private meeting this afternoon of the delegates excepting those in the British Dominions. After apologizing for having delayed the proceedings of the Conference for over a week, Mr. Bridgeman said that they were prepared to continue the discussions on the basis of the memorandum quoted in my 105, July 18, 3 p.m., by adopting certain variations. He then circulated a memorandum quoted my 125, July 28, 8 p.m.82
As having seen that this memorandum contained the same objectionable provision with regard to 6,000-ton 6-inch-gun cruisers I asked Mr. Bridgeman whether he had presented to the British Government the view I had made clear to him. See my 108, July 19, 5 p.m., as to freedom of armament of all cruisers with 8-inch guns. Both he and Cecil said that they had discussed this question in great detail while in London and that the British Government was of the opinion that it was desirable to limit for the future the armament of cruisers to 6-inch guns. Bridgeman added that they could not agree to a clause which left open the question of constructing other than certain specified 10,000-ton vessels with 8-inch guns. They then added that their last admonition from the Cabinet [was that] “unless the treaty provides for the limitation of the 8-inch gun the British Government feel that it would be a treaty not for a limitation but for an increase of armaments.” We then made it clear that under these circumstances we were apparently at a deadlock and I asked whether this was their final word on this question as I was unwilling to transmit their proposals with a statement that their position on the 8-inch gun was one of complete finality unless this were the case. They then reaffirmed their position and stated that they could not go further than as indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 (a) of their memorandum.
As we wished to place before them for submission to the British Government political clause quoted my 115, July 23, 2 p.m., amended [Page 138] pursuant to your 61, July 25, 11 a.m., copy was thereupon distributed; but Bridgeman stated that it would not meet their situation and he was sure it would not be acceptable as it indirectly countenanced the construction of a type of vessel which they desired to suppress.
Cecil then asked Viscount Ishii what they had to say with respect to 8-inch-gun question. Ishii replied that they did not wish to be bound by any engagement for the future but have no plan to construct further 8-inch-gun cruisers prior to 1936 other than 10,000-ton vessels specified.
There was then a discussion as to when a plenary session could be held in order that British might “explain their proposals to the world.” While we did not offer objection we said that if they wished to give us time to indicate our consent with respect to their proposals after having communicated them to our Government it would be necessary to wait until Monday. Ishii supported this view and Monday has been tentatively fixed for a plenary session.
Viscount Ishii then expressed some surprise at the new British proposal regarding submarines, pointing out that instead of parity at 60,000 tons a ratio of 90,000 to 60,000 was proposed and included in a total tonnage for all categories. The British delegates made a rather unsuccessful effort to explain their withdrawal of Admiral Field’s earlier proposal to the Japanese. Admiral Jones and I felt that as we had reached a deadlock on 8-inch-gun cruisers (paragraph 5) there was no useful purpose to be served by discussing other features of British proposal.