The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY DECEMBER 2, 1904. SEA COMMERCE IN TIME OF WAR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLVIII, Issue 12364, 2 December 1904, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY DECEMBER 2, 1904. SEA COMMERCE IN TIME OF WAR

To talk of international peace at a time when a fierce. and* bloody war is being waged between, two great. Powers may seem inopportune, yet it. is a remarkable fact that. President Roosevelt's proposal to hoid an "adjourned meeting" of the Hague Conference early next year has been favourably received by the Powers." Even Ruasia, though it isnot expected tliat heir quarrdli with Japan wil'i then be cloced, has consented to ssnd . delegates to a Convention that will probably meet in July. CoO.on.el Hay, in a despatch dealing with the coming eonfereimce, suggests that it should set itself to "complete the work of the first Conference' at the Hague. At that Conference, it will: be remembered, the Powors represented, or a, majority of them, agreed upon three "Conventions" and three "Declarations." The "Conventions" dealt, with the Arbit.ration Tribunal, the Revisions of the Resolutions of thoBrussels Conference of 1874, and the Extension to Maritime Warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 186 L By the "Declarations/ the majority of the Powers leprssented agreed to prohibit thamiselve'i from throwing projectiles from balloons, from using projectiles that diffuse- asphyxiating g-ases, and from u&iing "expansive" bullets. But certain questions were too debattab'lc to become the subjects of "Conventions" or "Declarations'," and were referred to a Conference to be held at an early date. It is these questions that President Roosevelt proposes to have discussed. The rights and duties of . neutrals, the type and calibre of rifle and_ naval artillery, and the revision of'the Genera Conventions were, by unanimous consent, referred to ;"a future Conference" •for cons:deration; "With few exceptions," the Conference also suggested as topics for discussion "a proposal tending to declare "the inviolability of private property in. war at sea," and another "regulatd'ng the bombardment of parts, -tiowns, and villages by a naval! force.'" Coilbnel Hay gives first pf.ace in his programme to the claim for the inviolability of private property in naval warfare.- America's proposal, as voiced by CciLonel Hay, is that private property at sea- should be'exempt from ..capture..' Here the American nation is true to itei tradition, for it has pressed this point for a. century and more, from the day® of Benjamin Franklyn, downwards. England, on the other-hand, has just as consistently opposed the proposal. The exemption, of private property at sea could not be carried at the Paris Convention, and the new provisions were a compromise—many of the leaders who would go mo further at the time admitting that if the new rules failed the whote step, would have to be taken. The central idea "was to approximate the position of property at nea to the position, of property on land, where merchandise is not confiscated and destroyed wholesale and as a matter of course, eiilher as4 booty for the greed of the individual or with, "malice aforethought" for'the indirect injury of the enemy. But it 'lias long been seen that the Deolara•ton of Paris would not accomplish this purpose. In 1871 Germany appealed to her merchants and sai'iors to place private ships and men at her disposal, proposing to uniform th© men and commission the ships for raids on French oo:v----meroe; and when France complained/to England—and the other Powers—<of an •= alleged breach of the Convention,' :tfo&British Government had to reply thab it was advised by its law officers that Germany was within her rights. It is Jioteworthy that*the current''inimber. of "B'Lackwood's Magazine" contains an'J, art idle—written evidently before, 'the; Aniieriicaii proposition was/ knoTunr-r-ioi., which ail^argument .its forcibly main-* ..tained that it has become necessary- to revise the Declaration of Paris so;-as "to complete its work. The Melbourne' "Argusi" voices the opinion of. those who think that the prospects" .of thds>! great: issue are brighter to-day th aii'ever they we-re before. The "Argus/ 5 ;n 'dealing with the matter from a cololiial point cf view, ytrongiy advo'oatesl .the adoption of the American proposal. It says:—•

The old idea tihat the sea power of Great Britain was maintained: by destroying the enemy's commerce, has been exploded 'by investigation, Lord Brassey, amongst others, showing by a series of papers that even in the years after Trafalgar British commerce .. .suffered more 'from-'■'privateering than did the French. And the safe'sea-road is more than ever important to Great Britain to-day, for. whnle- her rivals can moire than ever carry on trade •■•by road and rail, she is more than ever dependent upon the sea for the stability and the welfare of her commerce. Whatever doubts may have obtained in the past, it must be clear to-diay that Great Bri tain would gain—and would gain enormously—by .conditions .that would ielieve her fleets from tilie . stupendous task of- covering her commerce all over tho world, and would leave them as freo as are her armies to face thedr propsr work of fighting the fee. And then the cdLonial empire demands a ©onsideration which was not thougbff of in the fifties. How completely the interests of 'the colonies arg associated with the exemption from wanton destruction of private property at sea £<cai'cely needs demonstrar tion.

Wiitli the truth of this statement it is impossible to quarrel. It must be obvious to alir that the preservation of uninterrupted ovar-sea commerce is of vital importance! to these colonies. But

there is a. broader aspect of the question, and that is that in alii matters portaining to war it is the great and glorious paefc of Great Britain to lead humanity. The ."Edinburgh Rsview" recently said: "It should be the aim of civilised nations, while making on th© one hand the most effectual preparations for effective warfare, on the otlher to minimise as much as possiblo the disasters of war to private citizens. Th& next groat step to be taken in this direction -is th© exempt/ion of private property at sea from capture." This is the ethical position, whiile from tih© practical standpoint we have the further contention, .tfliat no bond tha.€ could be forged would tend more to strengthen the Imperial connection than this proposed agreement. Certa!ui?y it would mean less misery for the world; but whetiher it-would mean more security for ourselves is still, we think, a debateabie question.