The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Marine Review August [O27 U. S. S. Arizona Passing Through Panama Canal Locks on Way to Western Waters After Manoeuvres Naval Parity Is Impossible Without a Merchant Marine IMITATION of armaments with its at- tendant lessening of the burden of taxa- tion meets with universal approval. Pre- sumably Great Britain, as well as Japan and the United States, is most anxious to come to an agreement on the question of limiting the number of cruisers or she would not have indi- cated her readiness to participate in the tri- power conference now underway at Geneva. The apparent reason for the difficulty in coming to an agreement seems to be that the representatives of Great Britain have fixed ideas as to her own needs in this class of vessel. This amount is so large that in order to meet it and to maintain parity the United States would have to carry out a building program far beyond what it considers necessary; that is, if we are in fact to have any real limitation. Public opinion in the United States is we be- lieve unalterably opposed to less than parity with Great Britain in all classes of naval vessels. A responsible spokesman for the British point of view was quoted in the New York Times as follows: ‘Now as to cruisers. The United States could lose all her cruisers and still carry on in war con- ditions, whereas we should starve in a few weeks. In considering our cruiser requirements we are really considering war conditions. “Our sea streets are longer than America’s; we need more policemen to guard them. But defensive cruisers against raiders can be limited in size. We have proposed a limit for them. We have made a sharp distinction in our propeosals between heavy, offensive cruisers and light, de- fensive ones, and we are prepared to limit the heavier ones to a very low figure. “We have agreed to the parity principle throughout the conference. We have agreed that America ought to have the right to build as many cruisers as we. They apparently do not want to; that is where the trouble lies.” And here is another angle, from the same source, of the way our British friends view this subject: “But the Admiralty’s present contention has considerable virtue. It is no answer to the American proposal to build twenty-five 10,000-ton cruisers to say that we are at liberty to build fifty 5000-tonners if we wish. In an actual war that paper balance would be absolutely unreal.” The British criticize the American attitude in regard to individual cruiser tonnage claiming that heavier cruisers are chiefly weapons of offense MARINE REVIEW—August, 1927 42