JAPAN VIOLATES
TREATY, CHARGE
Swanson Questions Right to Keep "Subs," but Veils U.S. Action.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9. (AP)--Japan's move to retain more submarines than permitted by the London naval treaty was termed "a violation" of that pact by Secretary Swanson today, but the state department kept silent about what action would be taken by the United States. Secretary Hull not only declined to express his views on the Japanese note, but refused to disclose whether any formal answer had been made.
Announcements Made.
Secretary Swanson announced several important navy decisions, including: The United States fleet will hold its next maneuvers in north Pacific and Hawaiian waters in May and June of next year. The navy does not favor establishment of a European squadron, and the question has not been discussed with President Roosevelt, Swanson explained he was opposed to maintaining an American warship unit in European waters because "I don't think we ought to get mixed up in complicated European matters." Plans for two new battleships are virtually complete and actual construction could start "at a moment's notice." No decision has been reached concerning whether 14 or 16-inch guns will be carried, Swanson said, pending agreement by the Japanese government to a 14-inch limitation. The battleship plans, he added, will permit either caliber to be used.
Based on Clause.
Secretary Swanson's statment that the Japanese are violating the London pact revolves around interpretation of the "escalator" clause in the treaty. By that so-called "escape" clause any signatory which considers its national defense in jeopardy may invoke the clause to retain a specified amount of tonnage in any category of warships. Naval rivalry in Europe recently caused Great Britian to invoke the clause and announced it would retain sufficient old destroyers to aggregate 40,000 tons. By that action the United States was permitted to retain 40,000 tons and Japan 28,000 tons. The United States has formally notified London that the American navy will retain a number of old destroyers. The Japanese in their reply, however, announced that instead of 28,000 tons of destroyers they intended to retain a number of submarines. It is their right to subsitute submarines for destroyers that has been questioned.