500.A15 a 1/439: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson)
53. Your No. 100, July 16, 2 p.m. Appreciate fully the circumstances which necessitated preparation of your statement so as to [Page 112] conform to situation at last moment; there was, I know, insufficient time for you to submit it to me. I think it was a dignified, comprehensive, and moderate speech, and American press agrees with me in this opinion. My general criticism of it would be that there was tendency throughout to use general instead of specific terms in those places where exact meaning of a reference could not fail to be clear to hearers around the table but which might conceivably be obscure to world at large for whose benefit it was that British had urged the plenary session. That is to say, I see no reason why particular facts which display British attitude should not be set forth; for example, reference to fact that speedy, armed merchantmen are equivalents of cruisers with 6-inch guns and that United States has comparatively small number of such merchant vessels. I should also have laid stress on fact of British acceptance of cruiser and destroyer tonnage which was agreed to at Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament, at which no claim was made for greater tonnage, and that world conditions since that Conference have certainly not been more threatening than they were then and do not justify the enormous tonnage increases demanded. At point where you suggested that United States did not commence the building of 10,000-ton cruisers, I should have made specific statement that Great Britain had four 9,750-ton cruisers built between 1918 and 1925, of which two were built after Washington Conference; that since then twelve have been built, that two are now building and one laid down. These figures are taken from Chamberlain’s statement to me. I should inquire what country would raid British commerce; against whom could British Government require increases in cruiser tonnage? Especial emphasis should be laid on question of economy which British have been constantly bringing forward; it is important to show as you did that there is no economy in reducing unit sizes of battleships where the total tonnage remains the same, and the same observation applies to cruisers.
Should another plenary session become necessary I believe that a downright statement of facts to justify our conclusions is especially desirable; it is our desire, of course, to be courteous, but the facts should be stated no matter whom they hit.
Against the event that question of commerce raiders be again brought up in public session it is possible that it might be well to have prepared a list of the entire cruiser strength of all countries outside the three powers present at the Conference in order to see from what quarter Great Britain might have cause to fear that disturbances might come.
If Conference breaks up, then you should make a clear, specific statement of our position, stressing the points on which disagreement [Page 113] exists, pointing out particularly the enormous increase that Great Britain may demand; the increase in original cost and maintenance; and that instead of decreasing or limiting burdens of taxation Great Britain’s position would increase them. Statement should be as brief as can be, and should cover salient points; time should be taken for its preparation. It is difficult, I know, to frame such statement now, as first you have to know exactly points on which Conference might fail to arrive at agreement.