500.A15A5/670: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis)
41. Our 40, February 20, 3 p.m. For your information, we are giving you our observations on the subject of the French desire for reduction in unit tonnage of capital ships, as follows:
We are deeply sympathetic with any desire to effect economy in naval construction. As far as concerns effecting a saving by a reduction of the size of capital ships, however, there would appear to [Page 67] be no assurance of a saving by such a reduction in one category in the absence of quantitative limitation in this and all other categories. Furthermore, the inadvisability of arbitrarily and radically reducing the characteristics of one type of vessel that has reached its present stage after a long period of gradual development will readily be recognized.
As you recall, the Navy Department has made very exhaustive studies of the possibility of a reduction in the unit tonnage of capital ships and in a reduction of the caliber of guns mounted thereon. We have already agreed to accept a reduction in gun caliber to 14 inches provided such a limitation is accepted by the principal naval powers. We consider this reduction of gun caliber as a possible first step in the reduction of the size of capital ships and after we have had an opportunity to test out new construction methods and design we would be willing to consider any possibilities of reduction in unit tonnage which might appear feasible, having in mind the characteristics necessary for our defensive needs.
It might be pointed out that if no agreement for reduction of gun caliber below 16-inch is entered into generally, capital ships constructed to carry 16-inch guns and to incorporate the characteristics considered necessary for defense under modern conditions would very likely materially exceed 35,000 tons.
This Government maintains its position that economies could most equitably be accomplished by a reduction in total tonnage proportionately applied to all categories and not by radically changing the type of ship in any single category.
Public impression has been created through the press here that any reluctance on the part of France to sign a treaty containing agreement upon the qualitative characteristics of vessels along the lines generally of the proposed British bases of discussion would not be primarily by reason of an inability to accept these limitations for the comparatively short period covered by the agreement. According to the press reports, the hesitancy of the French Government to accept the agreement is based rather upon their reluctance to enter into a naval treaty to which Germany would be a cosignatory. Such a reluctance on the part of the French Government would very likely appear to the American public to be based upon political reasons outside of the scope of the naval conference and outside of the agenda of the conference which the United States understood to be the basis of discussion when the invitation to the meeting at London was accepted.