Netherlands. In a note dated April 14, the Dutch Foreign Minister states that Her Majesty's Government is disposed to render its co-operation in order that the desire of the Norwegian Government may be met, but an agreement to that effect cannot be concluded until after the ratification of the Spitsbergen Treaty. Monsieur van Karnebeek has notified the French Government accordingly.

Great Britain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden. The Governments of these countries have replied that they have no objection against inviting the Soviet Government to adhere to the Spitsbergen Treaty at the same time as the other non-signatory powers.

Japan. The Japanese Government is the only one from which nothing has been heard as yet."

The Norwegian Minister will be thankful to know whether the Government of the United States in consideration of the above information might be disposed to reconsider the question raised by the Norwegian Government.

Mr. Bryn avails himself of this opportunity to renew to Mr. Hughes the assurances of his highest consideration.

WASHINGTON, June 23, 1924.

857h.01/24

The Secretary of State to the Norwegian Minister (Bryn)

WASHINGTON, June 27, 1924.

The Secretary of State presents his compliments to the Norwegian Minister and acknowledges the receipt of his aide-mémoire of June 23, 1924, in which the Minister, referring to previous correspondence with the Department, makes informal inquiry in behalf of his Government whether the Government of the United States would be disposed to reconsider the question whether it would raise any objection if Russia were invited to adhere to the Spitzbergen Treaty at the same time as other Powers not signatory to the same are invited to adhere thereto. In his aide-mémoire the Minister is good enough to submit a synopsis of replies received by the Norwegian Government from the Governments of France, Netherlands, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark and Sweden in relation to the matter.

"In a note dated June 26, 1924, the Norwegian Minister informed the Secretary of State that the Norwegian Government had received a communication from the Japanese Government to the effect that it had no objection to inviting the Russian Government to adhere to the Spitzbergen Treaty, provided all signatory powers agree on this point (file no. 857h.01/23).

The Secretary of State desires to make the following response: First. The Treaty relating to Spitzbergen signed February 9, 1920, could not be modified save by agreement of all the Powers signatory thereto: and such modification in the case of the United States would not be effective without the approval of the Senate.

Second. As indicated in the Department's communication to the Norwegian Legation of April 30, 1924, the question raised must be regarded as covered by Article X of the Treaty. The provisions of the first paragraph thereof seem to have been designed primarily to safeguard the rights of Russian nationals and companies during a defined interval and until the recognition by the High Contracting Parties of a Russian Government.

Third. Should it be the desire of the States which have accepted the Spitzbergen Treaty to invite the adherence thereto of Russia through the medium of the régime now functioning therein, which has not been recognized by the United States, the Government of the United States would not raise an objection, provided it were clearly understood that the absence of such an objection should not be construed by any party to the Treaty or by the régime functioning in Russia as constituting the recognition of that régime by the Government of the United States.

857h.01/26a

The Department of State to the French Embassy

6

PROPOSED DRAFT OF AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE ADHESION OF THE RÉGIME KNOWN AS THE UNION OF THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO THE SPITZBERGEN TREATY

The Governments of the United States of America, the British Empire, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden, signatories to the Treaty concluded in Paris on February 9, 1920, concerning Spitzbergen, having found that some of them are recognizing the régime now functioning in Russia and known as the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and that those who do not recognize that régime are, under the following conditions, not opposed to the adherence of that régime to that Treaty,

Have agreed that, notwithstanding the stipulation in the first paragraph of Article 10, to permit the régime known as the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics to adhere to the said Treaty, even though all of the High Contracting Parties may not have recognized

Copy handed to the French Chargé by the Under Secretary of State, July 15, 1924.

that régime, on condition and with the definite understanding that the absence of objection to such adherence, on the part of the United States of America or of any other High Contracting Party shall not be construed by any party to said Treaty or to this Agreement or by the said régime known as the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics as constituting the recognition thereof by any High Contracting Party which has not recognized that régime.

The present Agreement shall be ratified by all of the High Contracting Parties. Each High Contracting Party shall in the shortest possible time send its ratification to the French Government which will see to its being notified to His Majesty the King of Norway and to the other High Contracting Parties. The ratifications shall remain on deposit in the Archives of the French Government. The present Agreement shall go into effect for each High Contracting Party on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

Done at Paris . . . . . 1924, in duplicate originals, one of which will be transmitted to the Government of His Majesty the King of Norway, and the other deposited in the Archives of the Government of the French Republic, by which Government an authenticated copy thereof will be delivered to each of the other High Contracting Parties signatory to the said Treaty of February 9, 1920, or an adherent thereto.

SHIPS

REMONSTRANCE BY GREAT BRITAIN AGAINST A PROPOSED INCREASE IN GUN ELEVATION ON AMERICAN CAPITAL RETAINED UNDER THE WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY'

500.A4b/214

No. 146

The British Chargé (Chilton) to the Secretary of State

WASHINGTON, February 14, 1924. SIR: It appears to His Majesty's Government from the extracts from the annual report of the Secretary of the Navy, which have been made public, that the United States naval authorities are again asking authority to utilise the large appropriation for the purpose of increasing the elevation of the turret guns of 13 capital ships already granted by Congress but on which action was suspended. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government think it desirable that their views on this important subject should at once be laid before the Government of the United States, especially as the fact that His Majesty's Government have not so far expressed their views on the subject is apparently regarded in some quarters as indicating

'For previous correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. I, pp. 24 ff.

that in their opinion the proposed action is not inconsistent with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty.

The relevant provision of the treaty is chapter II, Part 3, Section 1 (d), which prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, expressly provided for, any reconstruction of retained capital ships or aircraft carriers except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack. In the view of His Majesty's Government the words quoted govern the whole of the remainder of the paragraph, and the subsequent sentence dealing with alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament, does not in any way diminish the effect of these governing words, but merely develops them in certain respects, while also introducing certain exceptions which had been agreed on for special reasons. It follows that nothing which amounts to "reconstruction" may take place unless its object is to provide means of defence against air and submarine attack, as permitted by the above

section.

It is clear that an increase in the elevation of turret guns of capital ships cannot be intended for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack.

As regards the question whether such increase in the elevation involves any "reconstruction", the increase of the elevation of guns together with consequential alterations such as scrapping or replacement of existing fire-control systems, etc., involves considerable "reconstruction" in the fullest sense of that term. It is, therefore, the view of His Majesty's Government that an increase in the elevation of turret guns is not permissible under the terms of the treaty.

There is, however, a larger aspect of the question, and it is on this that His Majesty's Government desire to lay particular stress. One of the objects of the treaty, as expressed in the Preamble, is to reduce the burdens of competition in armament; and His Majesty's Government cannot but feel that the inevitable result of the action proposed by the United States naval authorities will be to defeat this object to a considerable extent. The proposal is to increase the elevation of the turret guns of 13 capital ships. His Majesty's Government are, of course, not aware of the exact amount of expenditure which this proposal would involve, but they note that the sum of $6,500,000 is proposed for that purpose, in addition presumably to any portion of the sum of $300,000 per ship per annum, regularly available for repairs without express congressional sanction, which may be employed. If, however, the proposal is carried out, it can hardly be doubted that public opinion in the United Kingdom will demand a corresponding increase in the elevation of Ibid., 1922, vol. 1, p. 247.

guns of the retained British capital ships, which will involve dealing with 17 or 18 ships, at an approximate cost of £116,000 per ship. The Japanese Government would probably feel compelled to take similar action, and the peoples of the three countries concerned would have to support the great expenditure involved, while the relative position of the three fleets would not be materially affected by the alterations. His Majesty's Government cannot doubt that the Government of the United States will agree that such a result would not only be deplorable in itself, but inconsistent with the objects of the Naval Treaty and the hopes which its conclusion inspired.

In these circumstances His Majesty's Government desire to make an earnest appeal to the Government of the United States not to impose upon the peoples of the countries concerned the burdens of the competition in armament, which will inevitably result from the execution of their present proposals. Those proposals are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, inconsistent with the provisions of the treaty, but even if arguments can be found in support of the contrary interpretation, it cannot be doubted that the effect of carrying them out would be entirely incompatible with its intentions. His Majesty's Government earnestly emphasize the psychological effect of such a departure as seems to be contemplated and the great disappointment it would cause to the people of all nations who regard the action of the United States Government at the Washington Conference as one of the most notable steps ever taken by any Government to establish conditions of world-peace.

In order to avoid any possibility of misconception, His Majesty's Government desire to repeat the assurance which has more than once been given to the United States Government 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.

His Majesty's Government desire, therefore, to propose that the Government of the United States, the Japanese Government and His Majesty's Government (the Governments of France and Italy are not directly concerned in view of the special provision of the Treaty allowing them to increase the calibre of the guns of their retained capital ships), should each undertake not to make, during the term of the Treaty, any increase in the elevation of the turret guns of their existing capital ships.

In making this communication I am to explain that His Majesty's Government intend to make a similar proposal to the Japanese Government, but have thought it well to lay their views before the Government of the United States without delay.

I have [etc.]

H. G. CHILTON