NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1929. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

Northern Advocate, 14 November 1929, Page 4

NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1929. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

Registered for Transmission Through the Post as a Newspaper.

In his Armistice Day address, President Hoover expressed the belief that if the difficulty regarding “freedom of the seas ’’ were overcome it would go a long way toward bringing about the abolition of war. He was referring especially to the blockading of an enemy coast in order to prevent the supply of foodstuffs from overseas and in this connection said, he had always held that foodstuffs should be made free from interference in wartime. He would place all vessels laden solely with food supplies on the same footing as hospital ships, for he thought the time had come when the starvation of women and children should be removed from the weapons of war. He wont on further to express the opinion that it was fear of interruption of sea-'borne supplies which had tended powerfully to develop naval construction in both importing and exporting nations, and presumably he wished his hearers to realise the fact that competition in armaments can have only one result. Idealistic as is the attitude of Mr. Hoover, it is impossible to follow' him to the logical conclusion of his argument, for, as desperate diseases call for desperate remedies, so does the oeeurrence of Avar make inevitable the use of every (levice which may seem to give advantage to either of opposing parties. Real freedom of the seas can exist only during times of peace: the only solution of the problem is to foster conditions which will make war impossible. The doctrine of the - freedom of the seas is not new, and it is feared that its preachers cannot be absolved altogether from a certain amount of hypocrisy. Harold S. Quigley, .Professor, of International Law and Far Eastern R" laions at the University of Minnesota, touches- upon this aspect of the sub ject in the October number of “Current History,” to which he contributes a very informative article. “If we restrict our view to Great Britain and the United States,” ho says, “we find that British Governments have been less idealistic upon the subject of freeing the seas, but that American wartime practice has been less consistent than British with peace-time professions. This may bo due less to any tendency to hypocrisy than to the greater uncertainty of America’s interest in future wars and the greater probability that she would bo neutral.” If the progress of law affecting private property at sea is allowed it is found (hat belligerents have been gradually re--1 axing their restrictions upon neutral i trade. Originally belligerents might capture at will either belligerent or neutral ships and goods on the high seas, whether of contraband character or not. Gradual rules such as those of the Oonsolato do Mare were drawn up, prohibiting the capture of neutral ships and goods, These rules, as Professor Quigley points out, were not born of humanitarian impulses, but were fostered by neutrals with large interests in the carrying trade. In ISGG was drawn up the Declaration of Paris, which was signed and ratified by the important European Powers and has been recognised by fhe remaining civilised states. The principal provisions are (1) neutral goods, except contraband, are free from capture in enemy ships, (2) the neutral flag covers enemy goods, with the exception of contraband of war. As already neutral shins and neutral cargoes on board them had long been regarded as free from capture, there remained still liable to capture and confiscation (1) enemy goods on non-neutral ships, (2) enemy ships. There remained also as restrictions upon trade the right of a belligerent to declare his own lists of contraband and to lay blockades. At the second Hague Conference, held in 1007, the United States, through its delegates, proposed that the right of capture be rclinquishe“

entirely except as it applied in eases of contraband and blockade. This proposal failed, only 21 of the 44 countries represented favouring it. Among the op-, ponents was Great Britain, which held ; that the British Navy was the only | offensive weapon it had against Continental powers, and that she had to rely j upon it to bring pressure to bear on her ( enemies in time of war. If, howe\er, at some future time the great Continental armies were to be reduced, and other changes favourable to the diminution oi armaments were to take place, the Go\eminent bright reconsider the question. During the World War there was an effort to gain control of the enemy’s commerce. In this effort the belligerents nsed in part similar, in part different, methods, but in both cases it is possible to bring their efforts under two heads, (1) the extension of contraband lists and (2) the extension of the right of blockade. Professor Quigley, afteranalysing contraband, blockade, dostru?_ tio'npete., points out very briefly that the freedom of the seas today, as in past centuries, is a question on which each State decides its attitude, not an any humanitarian basis but from the standpoint of the usefulness to itself of the control of enemy commerce in time of war. The frill significance of this conclusion is demonstrated by the embodiment of restrictions upon commerce among the enforcement provisions of the League 'Covenant. Members of the League agree in Article XVI to assist in preventing ‘ ‘ all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a member ef tire League or not.” This provision attests the recognition of trade control as a powerful sanction of international policy. It does not sound like “freedom of the seas. ” If, however, the League should bo abbto police the world, neutrality would disappear and there would be universal co-operation against an aggressor State, which, as the enemy of all, would bo deprived of the advantages which neutral nations now enable it to enjoy. The same results would attend the implementing of the Pact of Paris by similar sanctions. In other words the whole position may be summed up in tfTe statement that “the only security of a free sea is peace.”