Conference?

In London, in answer to a question put in the British House of Commons by Commander Kenworthy, Liberal M. P., Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain stated that a new naval armament conference, to be called by President Coolidge, had been the subject of conversations with the retiring U. S. Ambassador, Frank B. Kellogg.

This was magnified into imminent importance by the U. S. press. London, Paris, Rome and Tokyo were being "informally approached." The forthcoming' conference would "deal with matters outside the scope of the Washington Naval Treaty and would probably include aerial but not land armaments." The inevitable "high authority at Washington" stated that foundations for the conference were being laid.

But, at London, in answer to another of Commander Kenworthy's deep-laid questions, Mr. Chamberlain said:

"No such discussions are at present taking place. What I said was that the subject had been unofficially mentioned in a conversation I had with the late American Ambassador to this country. No communications have passed between the two countries on the subject, and, at the moment, I think it is undesirable that I should make any further statement."

In France, the Government was surprised, bought a number of London newspapers, acquainted themselves with the facts of the conversations that were supposed to be taking place in Paris. After astonishment had worn off, the capital received the conference news frigidly. France would want a large shoal of submarines. They were indispensable to her national security. But a principal agendum of the conference is the limitation of submarines. Hence the French hostility.

At Rome, the Government was equally mystified.

At Tokyo, was issued an outright denial that the Japanese Government had been approached.

It seemed that the Conference foundations were insecure. It also seemed likely that a conference will be called sometime, somewhere.