The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-11
OUR COUNTRY AND FOREIGN WAR

~ASAS - - WiOCSPAOoA PSk0A ~NN'AS
ton that in event of great European
war the United States would have reason
to congratulate herself as complacently as
the woman watched the bear fight, say
ing: $50 it, husband; go it, bear" This
popular conviction is gross delusion.
Prof. Solely, q. S. N, says that large
navy of at least 100 armed vessels would
be necessary to protect the trade of the
United States from destruction in event Of
an Anglo-Continental war, even if the
United States were not one of the ulti-
mate belllgerents. Not less than So per
cent of our carrying trade to and out Of
American ports goes in foreign ships, and
of the ~ 900 vessels that swallow this SO
per cent of our foreign trade, 5000 be-
long to Great Britain. In event of war
the British merchant ships would be
steadily driven out of the foreign trade by
| the swift cruisers of the enemy, as were
| those of the United States by the Con-
| federate cruisers. Great Britain's average
| importation of food is about 50,0OO, 900
monthly. or about $12, 0O0, 900 a week, and
she relies on her merchant feet for neces-
SuppiiSs i1OA44 obAOoOs CSpSSAniiy Va
| provisions.
Only one-third of her wheat supply is
| grown at home. Under the laws of war
British vessels are liable to capture or
| destruction with their British cargoes.
| The driving of England's merchant ma
| rine out of the foreign trade will be more
| than mercantile question, for the depri-
walton of the food supply for month or
| even for a fortnight, when food is arriving
| at So, 900, 600 week to meet their absolute
| necessities, would produce an immediate
| famine. At the outbreak of war all this
| food supply on board of British ships
| would be subject to seizure, while the
same cargoes in neutral vessels would be
| free. Hence the British foreign carrying
| trade would be compelled to resort to neu-
| trail flags and neutral owners for protec-
| ton, as our foreign carrying trade did to
escape the Confederate cruisers. But the
| popular impression that this would cause
| the British vessels and the British foreign
carrying trade to take refuge under the
| American flag, is a mistake, because no
| American citizen can obtain an American
register for vessel built abroad. He can
| acquire such a vessel and carry the Ameri-
| can flag, but he cannot bring her to
| home port with a cargo.
The carrying trade of England would go
| to Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden
| and Italy, none of which prescribe any
| condition for vessels of foreign construc-
| ton.
| O,~ To-
| plete bar TO our getting the carrying trade
! of England in event of war, and before
these laws could be suspended by act of
| congress the British trade would have
| passed to the neutral maritime powers al
| ready named, so that we would reap no
such benefit as neutrals from the oppor-
tunity presented by England's hour of
| difficulty that England at once derived
| from the depredations of the Confederate
cruisers. Neutral goods on an enemy's
ship are free from confscation, but while
the neutral owner would get the value of
| his goods from the captor the cargo would
not reach England.
| Then, too, the Continental enemies Of
England would be sure to make her neu-
trail trade in provisions liable 10 capture by
| declaring them contraband of war. Pro-
visions are clearly contraband when con-
signed directly to an enemy's army or
fleet for its consumption, and have been
considered so when consigned to port of
naval equipment. In the Napoleonic wars
England and France declared provisions
on board neutral vessels bound for an
enemy subject to presumption. In 1S34-s5
France announced her intention of regard
ing rice conveyed to Chinese ports as con-
traband of war, but England answered
that she could not admit that provisions
in general could be treated as contraband,
although under particular circumstances
they might acquire contraband charac-
ter, but the question was never tested in
the French prize courts, as no captures
were made.
Under this French doctrine in case of an
Anglo-Continental war our American ex-
port trade in provisions would be ruined.
for this French doctrine declares our food
exports not only contraband of war when
designed for direct military consumption,
but when going in the ordinary course Of
trade as food for the civil population of
the belligerent government. If food can
be thus excluded and captured then, saws
Professor Solely, clothing and industrial
supplies can be, and thus the entire trade of
neutrals with belligerents may be de-
stroyed irrespective of an effective blockade
OF ports. An Anglo-Continental war,
which so many Americans ignorantly
imagine would be remunerative to Amer
lea, would be fatal to all foreign export
trade of neutral state like the United
States. Our annual surplus wheat ranges
from 10000 900 to 1SO, O00. 900 of bushels,
while England's annual deficiency is
about 135, 0O0, O0o bushels.
Sixty per cent. OF England's deficiency
Is supplied from the United States, and in
average years so per cent. of our surplus
goes to supply it. The application of the
French doctrine of contraband 10 provis-
ions bound for England by one of the great
powers of Europe would mean the collapse
of our foreign wheat market. If an Anglo
Continental war took place tomorrow We
would be powerless to prevent this making
provisions contraband of war, because we
are without navy TO enforce our protest
and without sea coast defsnses to defy at