500.A15 a 1/317: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 24—2:04 a.m.]
26. This morning during a conversation with Cecil and Bridgeman, I explained with great care our objections to discussing the subjects covered by the Washington treaty at the present Conference. Cecil and Bridgeman were inclined to insist most vigorously that it would be necessary to have some definite decision for the construction of capital ships before 1931; that it would mean a great saving in the naval budgets of the various countries if the British ideas were carried out, as they believed that the decision of the three powers to refrain from building maximum size ships would have great weight in causing Italy and France to do likewise, and so forth and so forth.
Bridgeman asked whether the United States actually insisted upon parity in each class of vessel and made the suggestion that we might not care to construct up to the limits which the British considered were their actual requirements. In replying, I stated that these were matters which we would have to determine when we decided upon our building programs; that, of course, the right of parity was fundamental.
Cecil and Bridgeman did not indicate any definite views regarding the total tonnage limitations in the various classes of vessels, but they both were insistent upon the importance of placing limits on the [Page 52] maximum size of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. The desirability of two classes of cruisers, one of which would be considerably under 10,000 tons, was particularly emphasized by them.
No satisfactory common ground for discussing the specific questions before us has been supplied either by our conversations with the British or by their various proposals. Tomorrow there will be another meeting of the executive committee when, with the idea of getting the work started along definite lines, we will suggest the formation of technical committees to study various matters.