The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1911. WHAT IS THE DECLARATION?

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13419, 5 July 1911, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1911. WHAT IS THE DECLARATION?

Today's cables contain a lengthy report of the speech’delivered by tho Foreign Secretary (Sir Edward Grey), in reply to the criticisms of the lender of the Opposition (Mr A. J. Balfour). In view of tho fact that the Dili has passed its second reading, gome of it,; far-reaching effects may bo considered. The more, so since those effects extend far beyond the confines of the United Kingdom, and may imperil tho interests of the colonies. It is renrarkablo that; opinions upon the wisdom of endorsing the Declaration are violently antagonistic. It is variously described by responsible statesmen and journals, not usually given to hysterical indulgence, as a “groat betrayal,” “a contemptible concession to the peace-al-any-pricc party," and, on the other hand, as “the herald of universal peace" and the “greatest forward step yet achieved for conserving the interests and possessions of the Empire.” If, «iy tho antagonists, it he accepted in tho moment of frenzy, then Britain may be starved into submission within a week. The advocates of the Declaration are equally dear that by its endorsement the “possibilities of surrender by the cutting off of food supplies become too remote to merit consideration.’' There is certainly no reconciling such diametrically opposite opinions. Wo must look elsewhere for enlightenment. Sir Edward Fry, perhaps the highest authority on International Law of our day, may bo requisitioned in that behalf. Weighing the matter with judicial impartiality, he declares that the treaty not only establishes the law of nations 'no a stable foundation—not hitherto possible ; but that it absolutely safeguards British interests against the “errors" of belligerents, such as occurred during the Russo-Japanese war, and in no way whatever docs it or could it restrict or interfere with the food-supplies of Britain during hostilities. “That there is no such thing as an authoritative International Law lias always been a reproach to its professors,” lie says, “every nation determines its rules for itself, and there is no International Tribunal which can, by its decisions, preserve the rights and equities between nations outside tho reach of actual hostilities.” Ho shows how, during tho war in tho Far East, the shipowners of Britain found themselves cruelly oppressed and deprived of their rights by decisions of Russian and Japanese Prize Courts, before whom they had no right of appearance, and from whoso decisions they had no appeal. Had the Declaration then been in operation no such injustice could have arisen, since an International Tribunal would’ have detormined and enforced the rights of non-combatants.

The Declaration is a document of seventy-one articles, ranging over a vast variety of questions of International Law; but Sir Edward finds it expedient to direct hia mind primarily to the momentous problem: “How far would it imperil the food supply oi Britain in case of war?" Contraband, he postulates, is either absolute or conditional, the former dealing with arms and equipment, and the latter with foodstuffs. And this last-named may become “absolute contraband” where the supply is for an army in the field. “Now, foodstuffs supplied to a country for the support of

its civil inhabitants ought not to be considered lia contraband, though the same goods supplied to a fleet or army are clearly so.’’ At present that position, fair and equitable as i,t is, has no recognition, and Britain is the chief sufferer from it. “There are several cases,” he points out, “in which belligerents have declared that foodstuffs were absolute contraband. Franco did so in her war with China in 1885, and Germany publicly declared that her action was justifiable; and Russia acted upon the same principle in her war with Japan in 1904-; and if the Declaration he not ratified, and England should unfortunately be engaged in a naval war, there would lie the strongest temptation to our 'enemy to follow the precedents set by France, Germany, and Russia, mid to declare all foodstuffs supplied to this country by neutrals to •bo absolute contraband of war. ’ill a - effect of such a procedure would obviously be disastrous to the last degree.'’ From that danger the Declaration relieves Britain, approving ami endorsing the British view, and finally rejecting the French and Russian precedents. And for that reason alone, if for no others. Sir Edward Fry insists that its ratification- is "of almost infinite importance." It relieves noa-coinbataiits its well as those engaged iu war of a chaotic mass of varying precedents which can at any moment be interpreted, without any authoritative check, to their dire injury. And how does this affect Australia and the sister Dominions? This way, under existing international conditions all foodstuffs despatched to Britain in time of war, in which she may be engaged, may be declared contraband and seized; while, under the Declaration provisions, the International Tribunal exempts them from seizure—unless it be proved that the foodstuffs were , designed for the supply of troops or the naval forces. That is the situation in a sentence; and it crystallises a principle of momentous import alike to the Old Country and her oversea Dominions. Writing in the Contemporary, Dr. Lawrence puts the effect in this way: “Our despised Foreign Office has procured for us international rules which safeguard our food supplies iu time of war. Our wise Chambers of Commerce adjure us to repiuhaate them, and rely instead on a confhciing scries of precedents that can in a moment be turned to our injury. Wo are offered broad, and we are implored to cry for stones." Not less vitally important is the settlement of tho extremely vexed question of blockade, which lias hitherto always operated against Britain to the great loss of British traders. The world's precedents, varying arbitrarily from time to time, have always been against Britain, jeopardising her immense mercantile marine; rand without redress short of a threatened active participation in .hostilities in defence of British rights. But if tho Declaration be ratified, those rights will be preserved and enforced by the new International Tribunal, while their limit and extent will be authoritatively and clearly defined. Sir Edward Fry considers that the advantages thus arising to British traders aro of incalculable value, in that an appeal will lie from the decisions of the Courts of the capturing countries to the International Prize Court, whoso final dctcrininatin will be enforced if need should arise, whether by restoration or monetary compensation. It is a view that will be endorsed when we recall the strange arbitrary treatment of British ships by the nerve-shaken Russians in the earlier stages of their sea campaign with Japan, against which there was no redress short of active 'British reprisal. It may bo, as Sir Edward Fry admits, that there are some omissions from the Declaration which, in tho British interests, might have been included; but the concessions obtained entirely outweigh these omissions, and accentuate tho folly of rejection by reason of them. "The Declaration,” Mr Asquith pointed out to the Conference, “was a tremendous step in advance. It was a code of International Law, which while not perfect, was an enormous improvement. It marked a significant stage on tho road they all hoped to travel. Its ratification would not prejudice their freedom m advocating future improvements."