IMPERIAL CONFERENCE SENSATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15196, 15 July 1911, Page 10

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE SENSATION.

THE DOMINIONS ON MARITIME LAW. NEW ZEALAND'S ATTITUDE. U'COM OUlt U.\.\ COKHE3PONDKKT.) LONDON, June 2. Sensations are usually received with something of a flutter in the dovecot, and the 0110 sensation which it seemed pctsible that tho Imperial Conference could still provide was a rebuff to the British Government in regard to tho Declaration of London. Tho campaign against this compact lias been prosecuted with remarkable vigour here, and a. great number of chambers of commerce and other authorities had passed resolutions denouncing it. All that teemed to be wanting—and it was freely predicted that it would no longer be wanting niter this great conference—was' the condemnation of the Dominions, which had not been consulted in tho framing of tho new code. Tiie constitutional question of tho Imperial Council having been settled by withdrawal tho floor was clear for discussion of the Declaration, and what has happened has been watched with the keenest interest by the opponents of the code. Thcro had evidently been some lobbying before the debate came on, inasmuch as Mr T. Gibson Bowles, the great champion of free food arid the leader of tho revolt against the Declaration, wrote to The Times and tho Daily Mail, apparently with prior knowledge a letteT which commenced in the following complimentary fashion The rumour is current that the representatives of tho King's dominions beyond the seas hayo been ' squared ' by the Government to agree to the Declaration of London, and that,the forthcoming discussion in the Imperial Conferenoo will only register their squared acceptance of the Declaration." Before that letter appeared in print the matter had been pretty well threshed out. - mr Fisher had brought forward his motion fsr Australia objecting to certain clauses of tho Declaration and expressing a rather equivocal hope that "at any rate the first part of tho resolution (advising that , the dominions should be taken into confidence in such matter's) would be adopted." His lieutenant 1 , Dr Batchelor, who went . fully into the law of the Declaration, also ' approached it on the assumption that it 1 was too late to do anything, and that it would only be justifiable to reject the : code if they felt that tho safety of the Empire was in any way endangered. It was an original point that ho raised, whether "enemy" meant "enemy people" or "enemy government." Sir Edward Grey promised that it would ■ be made a condition of the ratification 1 that this should clearly refer to "enemy government. One of the principal schools of objectors to the code, he pointed i out, were those who believed that, Great Britain being the greatest naval power : ln the world, we should not acknowledge ■, am international restrictions whatever on r tho action of our fleet, but should make ! our_ own rules when war oame. But that • position had been abandoned, not first in this code, but in the Declaration of Paris in 1856. Tho most satisfactory feature of ; the present code was that instead of being subject, ns in previous agreements to naval , prize courts composed of representatives , of the belligerents, we should now be . judged by neutrals. One advantage of the ; neutrality laws was thus illustrated: If ( Britain found it impossible to clear tho [ Atlantic of her enemy's cruisers, her foodstuffs could be consigned to a neutral port , in Europe, and all England would require . to do would bo to' protect the passage ; across the Channel into England. " If ! the British navy could not do that the. , war would be over, as we should be ■ beaten." Mr Batchelor: We in Australia have no ' neutral port near us. > Sir Edward Grey agreed that in that • case Australia might not gain, but in ' any case she did not lose. "If we cr,n , prevent interference with the British flag wo can prevent interference with the . neutral flag. Only one thing can secure ; our safety in time'of war—namely, the 1 supremacy of the British fleet." [ The 'attitude of Canada on the question 1 was a repetition of that on the Imperial ; Council. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not insist that the dominions should be consulted in these matters, because " if a . dominion insisted on being consulted in re- . gard to matters which might result in i war that would imply the necessity that • they should take part, in the war.'" He ■ was entirely in favour'of the Declaration. When Sir Joseph Word and Dr Findlay ! had voiced their deliberate belief that the Declaration was a good thing, it was evident that the hopes of the opponents were doomed. The official report of tho conference gives a brief outline of tho New Zealand delegates' views, but in view of the attack by Mr Gibson Bowles I felt it was advisable to get Sir Joseph to express his attitude specially for the Otago Daily Times. . Sir Joseph had not seen tho letter in question, but when he read it he had no hesitation in characterising it as " a pieec of grotesque impertinence." There had been no attempt whatever on the part of the British Government to influence him, or, so faT as he knew, any other member of tho conference. As a matter of fact he had been approached by a considerable number of people here who wished to influence him to oppose the Declaration, . but he had come to the conclusion befoTC , lie left New Zealand, and after a very , careful study of the whole position, that the Declaration ought to be ratified. , Both before thev left their homes, and | since they arrived in Great Britain, he , and other delegates had been simply , flooded with literature condemning the Declaration. " There can be no doubt, I think, that the opponents of it are magnifying tho difficulties to an extent wliich nukes it rather a dubious matter to take their advice. Numbers of prominent men have interviewed me on the subject, and I have found in the course of discussion that a great number of them were opposed to tho Declaration, of I'aris, which has existed sinco 1856. Some of them do not want any Declaration at all, but that would bo disastrous. It would immediately lead to the old system of privateering, which would be intolerable. Others wanted to insist that Great Britain should have a majority on tho international court. Well, to his mind, what was fair to one Power should be fair for others." From the overseas point of view. Sir Joseph remarked, he had satisfied himself that our food supplies would have better protection now than' before, and that was what mattered a great deal for us in New Zealand and in the other dominions. Neutral vessels could not be destroyed by their captors except in rare circumstances. They had to he taken to a suitable port for' the capture to be validated, otherwise the captor would answer for his act, and the onus of proof now rested not on the captors but on the captured. No Power could now claim the right to sink neutral vowels without compensation. Considering that 90 per cent, of the British foodstuffs were carried on British ships that decision was of the protest importance to Great Britain, much more than to any other Power. " Some people seem to overlook the fact," lie continued, "that until this Declaration was drawn up we were subject to the Declaration of Paris, of 1856. He had 10 hesitation in saying that from the point of view of a country—as New Zealand was—shipping foodstuffs to Europe we were very much better off under the new compaet than under the old. The case of the British steamer Knight Commander, which was sunk by Hie Russians during the Russo-Japaneso .war, was a caso in point. She was a neutral ship', but her case was tried bv a court composed entirely of Russians, and as a result not a nennv was paid in rcspect of the destruction of the ship or her cirso. Under the new treaty, instead of that, case being considered without appeal by a court of the country whose! navv was responsible for the destruction | of the vessel, it .would he submitted to an international prize court of between nine and fifteen members. Now, assuming that only two Powers were at war. there must, lv n -majority of neutrals on th"t Court. It seems to me to be absolutely I contrary to cominonsenso to say that it

is not an advantage to tho British merI cantilo marine and to owners of ships and cargo in the Empire that matters liko this should be adjudicated upon by an international court with one British representative rather than by the present system of a court composed entirely of peiisons of the offending nation. At present the whole thing is decided by the Power most interested in resisting even a legitimate payment of damages. A great deal has been made of the representation of small Powers on the international courts, but tho eight main Powers were bound always to bo in a majority. The oidy way in which Britain herself could have a majority would bo to go to war on the terms of the Declaration, and that, of course, would reduce tho thing to an absurdity." Asked whether the trade and importance of tilt Dominions did not warrant their having a say, Sir Joseph said that was just tne point which he made at the conference. He thought the Declaration should have been submitted to the Dominions beforehand—and Sir Edward Grey had clearly promised that in future they would be consulted—but what he would specially have liked a previous consultation for was so that besides a British representative there should also be an overseas representative on the international courts. New Zealand's Prime Minister states his determination not to be used for party purposes in British politics, a determination which he believes the other members of the conferenoo share with him. "My business," he says, "is to do what I believe to be right for the Empire as a whole. Thero is a suggestion of preorganisation on the part of the opponents of the measure in their invoking the services of rear-admirals, evidently on the assumption that the expressed opinions of men who have held such high posts will deter others from giving their judgment on the question to the best of their ability. From my own conversations with several of the admirals I am quite clear that 6ome 1 of them would prefer in time of war that Britain should be under no restrictions ; whatever so that they might do as they 1 thought right without recognising any other obligations. No doubt this is due to extreme confidence in their own ability 1 to settle any point that may arise during war time. Of course extraordinary latitude must be allowed to men who hold 6uch high positions in time of war, but I 1 tliyik it is against tho weight of opinion - to leave it quite undefined. I doubt, too, whether these well-intentioned gentlemen ! have taken the trouble to study the whole i ot the 72 articles of the Declaration. As i far as I am concerned I have no regrets. I feel confident Are have done what is best Jo F ; mpire for New Zealand. J more satisfied than ever on I this point, said Sir Joseph in conclusion, i that the whole question is ono of the ■ maintenance of the British navy in its full [ supremacy. The British navy, and the | British, navy alone, can guard and protect ; the routes from the British dominions, and . if the authorities keep that navy strong ! e "°"S' l it will render very remote tho posi sibility of a naval war in which the safety , of Great Britain will be involved. . " The Declaration, taken as a whole, is , distinctly to the advantage of the Empire, , both at Home and in the dominions. In | these words Dr Findlay, who made tha r main speech in defence of the Declaration j at the conference, summed up his find- , in& The chief blunder which the opponents ' of the measure make, says the/Attorney- . general, is in losing sight of the existing international law on the subject. . There 1 might be some justification for objection ' if the Declaration constituted any departure from some intelligent and rational existing system. On the contrary, it is the establishment of order where chaos ' reigned, so that we might know 'what - would be decided in given cases. For the ! first time they were erecting an impartial international prize court in place of the > court of the country against which the claim was .made, as at present. 'As things t wero now it was frequently useless tohavs i recourse to a prize court, no matter how ' good one's claim was, and there was a great danger of war following the disallowance of righteous claims. Now we were to have the questions decided by neutral international courts and trained and impartial jurists. The Declaration actu* i ally gave to a belligerent wider powers I against neutrals than Britain had been in • the habit of practising, but it also re- ■ stricted the powers which the great Coni tiuental Powers had been in the habit of • exercising. Hence Great Britain as a i neutral would have' wider protection i against belligerents than she had ever had. j The conference decision on the_ Declaration has been received very quietly, • but it must be regarded as the sensation . of the whole session.