Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1928. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 136, 9 May 1928, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1928. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

The Round Table lias been discussing' that evergreen question of the “Freedom of the Seas'’- —- a phrase coined in war time and made use of more particularly by President Wilson, in the hourteen Points -which formed the basis of his pronouncement, during the Great War, on the peace terms. In the full meaning of the term the Freedom of the Seas covers the light to the free exchange of trade between neutral countries and either one or more belligerent countries engaged in war, unless an effective blockade is established and maintained against the belligerents. Carried out on that principle, it would mean that, there could be no contraband of war, and that a great manufacturing and . exporting country like the United States could supply,, without let or hindrance, ail foodstuffs and munitions of war that were being conveyed over the high seas to countries engaged in war. It would practically abolish the right of search and capture of any vessel engaged in such traffic in time of war, and, even were it possible to come to an agreement on such lines, it is very unlikely that its terms would be observed, for a naval Power waging war upon another Power would certainly have no respect for what Bethmann Hollweg in 1914 described as a mere “scrap of paper," when referring to the treaty under which Germany was bound in common with France, Britain, Austria and Russia. Germany naturally wanted the freedom of the seas, but she certainly was not inclined to allow it to any other Power but herself in war time, as witness her instruction to her submarine commanders to “sink at sight." The trouble with America before she entered the war was that the British Navy prevented her trading with the Central Powers. International law, however, recognises the right of naval Powers to interfere with neutral trade in time of war, and while such interferences may lead to trouble, so far as Great Britain is concerned she has always been ready to compensate neutrals for any unnecessary interferences with their trading vessels when it is shown they have not been carrying contraband goods. The demand for the “freedom of the seas” pre-sup-poses a case against Britain for an abuse of her powers of naval superiority, yet Britain has done more to clear flic seas of piratical craft and to thus ensure the free and unmolested seaborne traffic of the world than any other Power, and as we have seen of recent mouths, British war vessels are still engaged in punishing pirates in the China Seas. It is unfortunate that America

should regard Britain as a potential rival for the sea supremacy she apparently covets, and that all her efforts in connection with disarmament seem directed against Britain. If she builds the great navy she contemplates doing, will America be able to guard the freedom of the seas more effectively than Britain has done? The Round Table writer reminds us that, had Britain chosen to interfere with sea-borne traffic during the American civil war, that war would almost inevitably have resulted in the independence of the Southern States. As it was, in the one case in which a 900 tons steamer of 300 horse-power, constructed by Messrs Laird at Birkenhead for the Confederate service in 1862, was allowed to leave the Mersey the day before the British Government was aware of her true character, and arranged to detain her, the British Government compensated the Americans to the extent of £'3,200,000 for the damage she inflicted on American mercantile shipping, and acknowledgment was made of its receipt by the American Secretary of State, and when all claims were met it was stated there was a surplus of about 8,000,000 dollars —roughly speaking £l,600,000, just half the amount paid over.