Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1927, Volume I

500.A15 a 1/573a

The Secretary of State to President Coolidge

Washington, August 10, 1927.

My Dear Mr. President: I suppose with the telegrams that we received from Geneva and instructions we gave, together with the report which the Secretary of the Navy made to you, you are well informed on what took place at Geneva and the reason for the failure of the Conference. While the British Government assured Mr. Houghton they were perfectly willing for the United States to have parity on all classes of ships, Bridgeman did not make this offer in Geneva at all until he was instructed by London and even in that case I am assured by one of the press men who was present that when he was asked the question as to whether Great Britain was willing to make a treaty for parity in ships other than the 10,000 ton class, he said “Well, we would have to consider that”. Undoubtedly he went there intending not to grant it and every proposition there made was intended to deprive the United States of an equal, effective navy. … It became more and more evident that the only possible way to have a treaty with Great Britain on this subject was to agree to a total tonnage beyond all reason and one which would not be a limitation but an expansion. Furthermore, the Navy insists that we do not want small cruisers and to agree to build them would give the British a superiority owing to her naval bases and make it impossible for us to have as effective a navy as Great Britain. The lowest possible limit which Great Britain proposed was 426,000 tons of cruisers which might be increased by building fewer destroyers and submarines. In other words, they proposed the global or total tonnage system which they had opposed strenuously at the Preliminary Conference. This would give them the right to build cruisers in tonnage not built in the other classes. Of course, the New York World and the Times have frequently suggested that there should have been diplomatic correspondence preceding the Conference so that each country would have known exactly what the other country was willing to agree to. If that could have been done, no Conference would have been necessary. Of course, there is no ground for this except the statements of the Times and the World and Vice President Dawes’ speech.³ … The most careful preparations were made, as you know. The British Government was sounded out and a letter from Jones states that the British went back on everything they had agreed to with him in London.⁴ We had every assurance from the British Government that they desired an agreement on equal terms with the United States and any such tonnage as they proposed was far beyond any suggestions they had ever made and beyond the tentative understanding made at the Washington Conference.

Of course, I did everything in my power to make some agreement but I could not recommend an agreement that did not give us parity in fact as well as in principle or that would provide for an enormous expansion in cruiser building. Any such tonnage as was demanded by the British Government was absolutely uncalled for and unnecessary. We demonstrated to them that there was not over two hundred thousand tons of cruisers in all the rest of the world outside the United States and Japan; that there could be no possible threat to the British Government, her commerce or her possessions. Either the British Navy has gone mad or Great Britain has felt compelled to continue ship building to furnish employment. Perhaps both had something to do with it. I, of course, regret the outcome but I do not see how we could have prevented it. Personally I think it would have been perfectly simple to have entered into an agreement for a building program prior to 1931 on the following bases: that Great Britain should not build any additional ships beyond those already laid down; that the United States would not build more 10,000 ton ships than Great Britain has built or is building. This, of course, to include the 9800 ton ships, four of which Great Britain has. This is all we could build or could reasonably expect to build between now and 1931 but if we did desire to build more than this, we should build the smaller size cruisers. As near as I can find out from the Navy, they do not think there is any possibility of our building more before that time. Great Britain did not agree to this. Apparently she did not intend to agree to anything. It is evident that British opinion is not unanimous on this subject. I enclose you an article published by a man by the name of Bywater who I understand is an authority in Great Britain on naval affairs.⁵ I cannot say that this represents a majority of British opinion. I do not think it does. I think the majority of the British opinion is that Great Britain ought to have supremacy on the sea. I do not know what effect this is going to have on our building program before the Congress but I think there is a pretty strong feeling that we should extend our building program.

Faithfully yours,

Frank B. Kellogg

3. At Buffalo, N. Y., on the occasion of the dedication of the International Peace Bridge, Aug. 7, 1927.
4. Letter not found in Department files.
5. Hector Charles Bywater, naval correspondent for the English Daily News and Observer, and European naval correspondent for the Baltimore Sun; enclosure not printed.