Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1924, Volume I

500.A4b/290

The Secretary of State to the Chairmam of the House of Representatives Committee on Naval Affairs (Butler)

Washington, January 6, 1925.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication on behalf of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, transmitting House Resolution 387 and requesting that the information therein described should be furnished if not incompatible with the public interest.

The proposed resolution asks for “such data, information or objections” which the Secretary of State “may have from any foreign Government in connection with the modernization of certain capital ships of the United States Navy by increasing the elevation and range of turret guns”.

While I understand that the resolution has not been passed there is no objection to giving to your Committee the information desired. The only “data, information and objections” which the Department of State has received from any foreign Government relating to the increase of the elevation and range of turret guns is as follows:

In a communication under date of March 15, 1923,¹⁴ the British Ambassador at Washington reviewed the reports that had been made as to the increase in the elevation of the turret guns of British ships, and made the categorical declaration that no alteration had been made in the elevation of turret guns of any British capital ships since they were first placed in commission.

In subsequent communications from the British Ambassador at Washington it has been stated to be the view of His Majesty’s Government that an increase in the elevation of turret guns is not permissible under the terms of the Naval Treaty, with special reference to Chapter II, Part 3, Section I (d) which prohibits, subject to certain exceptions expressly provided for, any reconstruction of retained capital ships or of aircraft carriers, except for the purpose of providing means of defense against air and submarine attack. As regards the question whether such increase in the elevation of turret guns involves any “reconstruction”, it is stated to be the view of the British Government that the increase of the elevation of guns, together with consequential alterations such as scrapping or replacement of existing fire control systems, et cetera, involves considerable “reconstruction” in the fullest sense of the term. The British Government lay particular emphasis upon what is described as a larger aspect of the question, that is to say that one of the objects of the Treaty is to reduce the burdens of competition in armament, and the British Government feel that action by the United States in the elevation of turret guns would tend to defeat this object to a considerable extent. In these circumstances the British Government make an earnest appeal that the Government of the United States should not impose upon the peoples of the countries concerned the burdens of competition in armament which are deemed to result from the execution of the proposal to elevate the turret guns on retained capital ships of the United States, it being considered that even if arguments can be found in support of the contrary interpretation of the Treaty, the effect of carrying out such proposals would be incompatible with its intentions. The assurance is repeated that no alteration has been made in the elevation of the turret guns of any existing British capital ships since they were first placed in commission. It was further proposed that the Government of the United States, the Japanese Government and the British Government (the Governments of France and Italy not being deemed to be directly concerned in view of the exceptions of the Treaty) should undertake not to make during the term of the Treaty any increase in the elevation of the turret guns of their existing capital ships.

I have been informed by the Japanese Government that it was not the view of the Japanese Government that a change in the gun elevations, which did not require changes of the prohibited sort in the ships themselves, would be a violation of the Naval Treaty.¹⁵

I may add that, in view of the detailed description given by the Navy Department of the nature of the changes which would be necessary to elevate the turret guns on the capital ships retained by the United States, these changes appear to be of a minor sort and in my opinion would not constitute a reconstruction of the ships within the meaning which should be attributed to the provision of the Naval Treaty. I am of the opinion, however, that while such changes as would be contemplated in the case of American ships would not constitute a violation of the terms of the Treaty, they would tend to evoke the competition which it has been the policy of this Government to mitigate. It may also be stated that so far as the United States is concerned, the question appears to be of consequence only in relation to certain of the specified retained ships, and these ships under the replacement clauses of the Treaty are to be replaced, within ten or twelve years.

I am [etc.]

Charles E. Hughes

14. Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 26.
15. See memorandum by the Secretary of State of a conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, May 3, 1923, Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 32.