“NOT A LEG TO STAND ON”

Evening Star, Issue 20196, 8 June 1929, Page 7

“NOT A LEG TO STAND ON”

THE I'M ALONE CASE AMERICAN OFFICIALS EMBARRASSED THE “WETS” AND THE "DRYS." [Fuoii Our Own Correspondent,] SAN FRANCISCO, May 15. Probably novtn- in the history oi : the world has a foreign office of any Government agreed to the arbitration of an international dispute with the underlying feeling width prevails among State Government officials as they receive the agreement of* the Canadian Government, through Minister Vincent Massey, to have tiic I’m Alone case adjudicated. Jt is entirely probable also that a country lias never had an altercation with a foreign power in which the feelings of the country were so sharply divided. Hoth of these queer situations, precipitated by the diplomatic correspondence over the sinking of the Canadian ship I’m Alone, “ some 200 miles atsea, “are due to the bitter division in the United States over the merits and demerits of Prohibition. At heart most of the officials of the State Department in Washington arc wet. They dare not avow this, of course. .-They dare not admit openly that they believe this Government is in the wrong. They have to make the best case they can on paper, otherwise, of course, the tremendous dry majority in both House and Senate would be stirred up by the, AntiSaloon League, and the State Department- would not only be in disfavour, it would bo put in the position of throwing down the President in Ids recent speeches on law enforcement. Privately there is general admission in the State Department, and in diplomatic circles in Washington, that the United States has not a leg to stand on in its contention that the revenue cutter had the right to pursue the. I’m Alone beyond the one hour's sail limit. Had the schooner been within the three-mile limit at the time she was hailed there would he no question about the rigid to pursue her “hotly,” although the question would still remain whether the cutter, when the .schooner persistently refused -to stop, had the right to sink her by gmiliro. The question of the second cutter, which really did the sinking—the din gun of the first cutter haying jammed and stayed out of commission apparently for the entire two days—is not really so important. It is regarded as merely one of the extraneous questions which clutter up the case. SHOULD HAVE HALTED There is question as to whether the I'm Alone was outside the- one hour’s sail at the time she was hailed. The feeling in the State Department is that the United States is right on the contention, and, were it the only question involved, would win the case Irom any impartial arbitration body. There is the feeling, expressed by AttorneyGeneral Mitchell after a review of the evidence, that the testimony of the. officers of the Coastguard Service is more circumstantial, and is backed up by the testimony of the captain of the freighter who was hailed shortly alter the I’m Alone was ordered to stop.

The State Department also feels that there is considerable strength in its point that -the captain of the I’m Alone, if he were so certain he were within Ids rights, should have halted and permitted the case to ho tried alter ids vessel had been taken into port.

This angle is disputed with some power by Mr Vincent Massey .the Canadian Minister, who points cut that, while this might result in a fair decision when it should ho finally adjudicated, nothing would compensate the owners of the vessel for the extreme length of delay which would certainly ensue in such a process—-ho did not"add in American courts, as he might havo done, State Department officials concede. lint the big question in "Washington jS whether under the treaty which exists the United States Government has the right to stop a British vessel within the one hour's sail limit, and then .pursue her beyond it as though she bad been hailed within the three-mile limit There is no question about the right to hail and search, if suspicion exists, within the one hour's sail. There is serious question about the right to pursue her beyond that limit if she refused to stop while still within it. Another angle involved in American sentiment is causing considerable interest in Washington. It contrasts sharply with the shooting in public streets and inland waters by Prohibition enforcement officers, some of which recently has aroused a storm of protest, especially the killing of an alleged bootlegger who used a smoke screen right on the streets of the capital, the

shooting across the hows ol the big packets between Norfolk and Balti-more—-all inland waters—and rough work in connection with the search of the Stuyvessant private yacht, virtually m Harbour. REACTIONS SHARPLY DIVIDED But the reactions to all these socalled outrages had been sharply divided. The “wets” naturally denounce them. The “ drys ” say they arc too bad, but are necessary to enforce this law. One of the 410111 ts that infuriates the “ wets ” most is that the “ drys ” are so determined to enforce the prohibition law that they arc willing, tho “ wets ” assert, to condone any outrages or any excess of normal police methods in order that the one law they set above everything else should be cnfoi ced.

But the l ! m Alone ease presents an entirely new angle on this. The “drys ” are thoroughly alarmed by the implied tiireat of the Canadian Government that if the United States does not observe the letter and spirit of the 1921 treaty Canada will abrogate the treaty. Mr Massey shrewdly calls attention to the boasts of the Coast Guard service that rum smuggling on the Atlantic Coast is virtually a tiling of the past, and lias been reduced to oneeighth of what it was a few years ago. This has had its effect, it is apparent to-day, in thoroughly alarming the “ drys.’ They fear the consequences if the United States should by any chance win this arbitration, with the possible result that Canada would abrogate the treaty, and thus put back the old three-mile limit for search and seizure of suspected rum runners. The “drys” realise better than the “ wots ” even, since they studied the question and really inspired the one hour’s sail treaty, how valuable this treaty is in preventing rum running. So it is with very mixed emotions that they have been studying notes of the Canadian Minister at Washington. CANADA'S DIGNITY Canada’s national dignity is vyorthily upheld in the correspondence with the United States over the sinking of tiie I’m Alone. The terms of the Canadian protest are courteous but firm. The attitude of the United States is equally friendly, but the two Governments are so far apart in their conclusions that arbitration is the only possible way out of the impasse. There are two main .points at issue—the speed capacity of the sunken schooner and the right of the American coastguard to pursue-the ship two hundred miles out to sea and then sink her. The Canadian Minister has stated the matter very fairly and clearly. He makes a. special point of the fact that the deliberate sinking of the schooner afforded proof of punitive intent. The American Note in reply merely said the sea was running so high at the time that boarding was impossible. Tt failed to make any comment in regard to the putting of the lives of the entire crew in deadly jeopardy in such a case. The matter will now go to arbitration. A boai’d of three, one representing Canada, another the United States, and the third neutral.' chosen by these two, will discuss the matter and issue their decision in due course. It is felt that if out of tins arbitration there emerges a clear and incontrovertible interpretation of the present confusing tides and regulations in regard to pursuit at sea the case may well turn out to have been a beneficial event to the world.