MARITIME LAW

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 298, 3 December 1928, Page 4

MARITIME LAW

AN overnight message from Washington tells us to-day that a movement is on foot there to call a conference of naval Powers with a view to revising and codifying international maritime law as applicable in wartime. In this brief message there is a reminder of serious difficulties that arose between Great Britain and the United States in the earlier days of the Great War. The controversy came out of the naval blockade of enemy ports that had been tstablished by the British Navy, and in this the question of contraband arose. American ships laden with food and other supplies destined for these ports, or for neutral European ports in communication with the enemy, were held up. Americans protested loudly against this proceeding, which they characterised as highhanded and contrary to the law

of nations. Notwithstanding that Britain promised—and eventually paid—the fullest compensation to the shipowners and consignors, American indignation rose to such a pitch that the incidents went very near .bringing the United States into the war on the enemy’s side. It was probably only the cooler counsels of the American Ambassador in London, Mr Walter H. Page, that averted this culmination, although the British authorities wore able to cite justifying precedents even from American history. Though, of course, the heat generated gradually died down, the soreness has still rankled in the American mind.

Indeed, there are not a few who trace to this source the strong desire that is now evinced in the United States to establish a fighting navy that could compete with the British. Dealing with the subject, a British writer on naval matters has said that the support which public opinion within the United States gives to the naval experts’ claim to complete parity with Britain is not based to any extent on a belief that war between the two countries is a likely contingency, but on an insistence that, should Britain ever be implicated in a war with another Power, America must be in a position to secure that her trade shall proceed free from search or interference. The British Government will probably be quite ready to fall in with the American proposal. Not only is the law that has grown up indefinite and capable of various interpretations, but the events of the war years, particularly the employment of the submarine, have created doubts and have led to the growth of a feeling that the whole implications of maritime warfare should be examined afresh, and the traditional attitude only maintained if it can be clearly justified. The reduction of the law to some generally accepted order, combined with provision for the reference of disputes to some mutually agreeable tribunal, should undoubtedly make for the preservation of peace.