THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1923. THE TWELVE MILE LIMIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18551, 8 November 1923, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1923. THE TWELVE MILE LIMIT.

Without expressing any opinion , favourable or unfavourable to prohibition in America, it is both possible and reasonable to sympathise with the Government of the United States in its efforts to prevent the illegal entry of liquor by sea routes. The extent and character of the national boundaries make the problem one of great difficulty. The long and practically unguarded frontier where United States territory marches with Canadian, the Mexican border behind which resides an authority never distinguished for strict maintenance of law and order, and the numerous handily adjacent ports in the West Indies all multiply opportunities for those who accept the risks of liquor-running for the sake of its profits. In addition, the American authorities have experienced trouble of a serious nature in stopping the transhipment of cargoes just at the limit of territorial waters and the subsequent evasion of the revenue officers. For this reason a suggestion was made some time ago that the limit of territorial waters should be extended from three to twelve miles off-shore. This met with a general refusal from the Powers addressed. It was advanced, not as a temporary expedient, or as of individual application, but as a general and permanent modification of conventions sanctioned by long usage. It was in fact, too sudden and drastic for acceptance. Foreign opinion, in any case, had been irritated. Ships of all nationalities had been forbidden to enter American ports carrying liquor except as medical stores. First there was laid down the penalty of seizure of the liquor; latterly there has been a hint that the ships themselves might be seized. This has been disturbing to the passenger-carrying lines, and the restivenesß of the shipping interests has communicated itself to their several governments. Now there have come circumstantial stories of Britain and America reaching a compromise on the right of seizure.

The proposed treaty as outlined provides that, without relinquishing the general three-mile rule Britain shall concede to the United States rights of search and seizure within 12 miles of the American coast, as if in territorial waters. In return British ships entering port shall be permitted to carry liquor so long as it is kept under seal while within American jurisdiction. This compact has not, so far as is known, been officially made; it is even opposed by many sections of American opinion. Whatever be the private or general opinion in Britain about the ethics or the practicability of prohibition on the American plan, there is a good case for meeting the authorities in any reasonable way in their efforts to enforce the law. There can be no question that great quantities of liquor are despatched from British ports, with the United States as the ultimate destination. It is useless to doubt, also, that British possessions in the West Indies serve as bases for liquor-run-ning operations of great magnitude. Assertions and denials have been frequent regarding both these conditions, but the cumulative evidence is too plentiful and too circumstantial to ignore. Yet it is not against the letter or spirit of any British law to export liquor for any destination. There is no authority for making particular inquiries as to the consignees of a cargo of it. Therefore, without an alteration of the law which would not be easily secured, it is impossible to place any check on operations at the port of lading. Also, the measure of control which can be exercised over a j ship at sea is not great, so long as the elementary principles of maritime and international law are observed. It is no breach of either to I tranship liquor in non-territorial i waters. It is a breach of American law to carry it into United States territory, but in the general under.Bfafcadag ** tl» system, this is not

<kmo under the British flag. Therefore any action taken by Britain to meet American wishes must, in one sense, be purely an act of grace. Yet on considerations going further than the letter of the law, good reasons exist for Britain conceding something to America in this vexatious matter.

The ever-present anti-British elements in the United States have made play with the liquor, situation to abuse the country they hate so rancorously. If it did not offer, they would find something else, but it is unfortunate that such plentiful ammunition should be handed to them. If, however, Britain were to regulate her every action to give no offence to anti-British opinion in the United States, she would have no time to think of anything else. There are other reasons why a great nation should be ready to extend to another more than the usual amount of courtesy and co-operation in such circumstances. The maintenance of the law of the United States is the responsibility of its Government alone. Britain did not make the prohibition Jaw, and was not asked to approvo it; the majority of the people of the United Kingdom are sceptical of its worth or openly inimical to it. That may be found by studying all the usual channels for the expression of public opinion. Yet, when a neighbouring and friendly nation is striving against serious difficulties to enforce a law, embodied in its very constitution, it is a neighbourly, wise, and dignified course to be helpful where possible. The merits or demerits of the law do not alter this principle. It is not good for Britain that the law of the United States should be violated, with British ships and ports concerned, directly or remotely, in the system. Stripped of extraneous circumstances, and reduced to basic principles, l liquor-running into the United States does not differ materially from gun-running into the territory of a friendly power. Britain has not customarily connived at gun-running. Granting, therefore, that any control of export from Britain, or of the cargoes carried by British ships is so difficult as to be ruled out of the question, there is a considerable case for meeting the American request that the right of search be extended. Corresponding advantages to British shipping are indicated, but without them there is a case. It rests on the general desirability that the laws of any country, when enacted, should be enforced so that the rule of law may be confirmed and perpetuated. This is much broader and more important than the starting point of liquor or no liquor.