500.A15a3/905a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes)26
127. In arguments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee it has been contended by some of the “big Navy” opponents of the treaty, who thereby seek to confuse and discredit the treaty, that construction might be placed on article 19, second sentence, so as to permit replacements of tonnage in 6-inch cruisers with the same amount of tonnage in 8-inch cruisers or vice versa by any of the three parties. Since the word “replacement” necessarily implies the substitution of the same amount of tonnage in the same kind of ships, we believe there is no basis for such contention. We consider, moreover, that this contention is directly contrary to the fair implications of the provision for transfer included in article 17, and also directly disregards division of cruisers into two sub-categories made by articles 15 and 16. We are anxious, nevertheless, that the treaty’s enemies in the Senate may be given no possible excuse. Approach should be made therefore to the appropriate British authorities to inquire whether an exchange of notes on the following terms would be consented to:27
“It is the understanding of the Government of the United States that the word category in Article nineteen of the London Naval Treaty of 1930 means category or sub-category. The Government of the United States declares that it interprets the Treaty to mean that vessels becoming overage in either sub-category A or sub-category B of the cruiser categories (Article sixteen) shall be replaceable only in that sub-category.
“The American Government will be most happy to have the confirmation of this understanding from His Majesty’s Government.”
Use your best efforts to obtain Foreign Office consent to an exchange of notes of this nature as soon as possible. A similar note will be addressed to the Imperial Japanese Government.