The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1918. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 11, 12 January 1918, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1918. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

fir the oauee thai Jack* ietietanm, For the wrong thai needs retistanee, For the fufiire tn the di* tenon, A*i the good that toe oun 4a.

"Many persons," remarked Sir John Macdonell in an interesting article a Shdft time ago, 'live iby catchwords or phrases." It may savour of presumption to apply this rather cynical criticism to the President of the United States. But no one who has followed Mr. Woodrow Wilson's public career with attention could eonscientieusly deny that his views tend almost automatically to express themselves in the form of aphorisms and maxims'; and onde opiriidns have run into ■ jthat shape they are liable to become rigid; difficult to adjust, and even tyran- j nical. Ij; seems to us that this tendency,' which we find illustrated constantly in all Mr. Wilson's most noteworthy speeches and messages, is the natural outcome of lite prolonged academic training. In spite of all his intellectual vigour and his high moral courage, he pays the penalty for long years spent in the cultivation of "cloistered virtues," through the medium of a more or less theoretical and doctrinaire outlook upon life. It Would he an interesting task to analyse President Wilson's character and his public policy from this point of view But our present purpose is to draw attention to the special way in which his preference for rather vague and abstract generalisations is exhibited in his latest utterance on the great crisis that now confronts the world. Within a very few hours after the publication of his latest manifesto, President Wilson has found it necessary to explain precisely what he means by declaring for "international free trade." But it is with his use of the phrase "freedom of the seas" that we are concerned to-day. The phrase "freedom of the seas," like all comprehensive general statements of this type, may convey many different meanings; and as a matter of historical fact, it has been construed in at least five or six distinct and more or less independent ways since it first attracted attention in the controversial ilterature of international law. some three centuries ago. But so far as this war is concerned, "the freedom of the seas" may always be regarded as bearing directly upon a practical problem—which inevitably arises as soon as ever States or nations engage in war—the rights and duties of neutrals in regard to belligerents. Without indulging iv superfluous details, we may fairly say that for the last hundred years and more tho phrase " freedom of the seas" has been generally employed by neutrals to express their conviction that their trade ought to be interfered with as little as possible by belligerents during a state of war. The carrying of enemy goods on neutral vessels, the carrying of neutral goods on enemy ships, the condition essential to lawful or effective blockade, the definition of contraband, the status of private property in regard to capture—all" these questions simply bristle with legal difficulties, and the maxim " freedom of the seas" is generally assumed by those who use it to sweep them all away. Now a very strong case can undoubtedly be made out by neutrals against undue interference with their trade in war time. But there is also the belligerents' point of view to be considered; and what neutrals do not usually appear to realise is that any sort of " freedom of the seas" which would give them absolutely unrestricted liberty to trade with belligerents would correspondingly hamper the activities of all naval powers engaged in war, and would, if carried to its logical extreme, in the long run prevent nations at war from making any effective use of their strength at sea to the detriment of the enemy. These may be somewhat obviotiß considerations, but they cam' us straight to the heart of the subject. For the only reason that the outcry for "the freedom of the seas" has attained Such intensity during this present war, is that the Central Powers have been forced to realise that if Britain is allowed to utilise her overwhelming naval strength to the full to strangle their seaborne trade and prevent neutrals from supplying them with food and raw material, their defeat must only be a matter of time. And this is the reason that Germany has so loudly and persistently backed up the neutrals -who since the war began have protested against Britain's alleged infringements of their rights at sea. We need hardly remind our readers that two years ago President Wilson himself felt compelled to protest strongly against Britain's interference with American trade. But since America has declared war on Germany the President very naturally looks at the question from another standpoint; and the Government of the United States is now vigorously assisting Britain to tighten the blockade of the Central Powers, and to limit the surviving neutral States to the narrowest definition of their trading rights compatible with their political independence. But President Wilson presumably understands all this better than anybody else; and it is all the more difficult to comprehend how he can bring himself ■ to use this consecrated phrase, "freedom of the seas," in any loose or un- | guarded 6ense, while he knows that to [the Central Powers and the neutrals

who sympathise with them it is always meant to cover a- deadly blow aimed directly at Britain's naval strength. The discussion of this topic in full would involve a great many side issues at which we Can only glance in a casual way. The suggestion that Britain's naval strength has been used to establish tyranny upon the ocean is in the last degree misleading and untrue. As a matter of fact, quite apart from Britain's services to the world in putting down piracy and slaving, and policing the high seas, it is historically correct to say that nothing 'but Britain's naval strength has protected the other civilised countries .from spoliation or conquest by such a predatory power as Germany. When President Roosevelt declared that only the British Navy stood between Germany and the United States, he was not speaking metaphorically, but literally. Under the protection of the British fleets the whole world's trade has traversed the ocean highways safely in time of peace. And in war-time this cry of " freedom of the seas " is raised by the Power which has deliberately broken every principle and tradition of naval warfare, and has introduced for the first time into the modern world the monstrous practice of the indiscriminate slaughter of helpless civilians. "It would require a Tacitus or a Raemakers," it has been well said, "to brand as it deserves the audacity of those who, in one and the same breath, bluster about -' freedom of the seas," and justify killing intentionally non-combatants and neutral subjects.' Naturally, Germany is anxious to secure that " freedom of the seas" which would serve her purposes' best. But no reason can possibly be advanced which would justify such a limitation of naval power as " free trade for neutrals in war time'"' would imply, without imposing any corresponding , limitation on military activity on land. The " freedom of the seas " which Germany and her friends desire would rei duce the greatest navies ' practically to impotence in war time, and would thus transfer " world power" at once to the greatest military nations. All this, we repeat, is familiar to President Wilson, and it is all the more remarkable and regrettable that his passion for abstract generalisations should have led him to employ words which can possibly be construed in support of the audacious demand of the Germans for the limitation of Britain's sea power in such a way as to leave their own military strength wholly unfettered, to strike another. blow for "the hegemony of the world."