Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-26
DIR COMMERCE. AND WAR.

| The question has frequently been asked,
| What would be the position Of our for
eign commerce I'm our own and In neutral
] ships In case of war between this coun-
| try and Spain? and the matter has been
| widely discussed. with the result Of Gre
| ating a good deal of confusion in the pub
lie mind concerning it. The New York
Evening Post thinks, however, that :here
is no occasion for this confusion, as the
answer TO the question is plain.
First the Post deals with neutral bot
toms, and after giving a brief history OF
the controversy over the doctrine that
"the flag covers the cargo" and sum
marizing the influences that led to the
urging Of that doctrine. says:
ave, as the great carriers Of the world
during the Napoleonic wars were Vigor-
Gus advocates of this (doctrne), but Eng
land, as the great sea-power, was unwill-
ing to concede it, But at last even she
gave in, and when the Powers met in
Paris after the CrimeaE war, they all
that is, England, France, Russia, Prus-
sia and Italy-agreed that free ships
should make free goods-that u.s. an
enemy's goods should always be safe in
neutral vessel"
However, neither Spain nor the United
States signed this declaration, nor did
either sign the declaration against pri-
Watering. Therefore. adds the Post, ''un-
der the law of nations" American
goods, no matter by what ships carried
would be liable to seizure by Spanish
cruisers, upon paying the freight to the
carrier. Although most of our exports go
in British ships, these ships could, under
that law be stopped on the high seas,
and their cargoes, if belonging to Ameri-
cans, be taken from them.
But here is a saving factor by virtue of
treaty. as the Post goes on to explain
Spain, by a treaty of trade and COM
merce concluded with us October q, 1895,
explained and ratified by another treaty
concluded in 1919, agreed not only that
free ships should make free goods as be-
tween Spain and the United States-that
is, that neither Of /em would seize the
others goods, in case of war, on board a
neutral vessel-but also that they would
not seize the goods of any Power at war
with them on board a neutral vessel, If
the government of this neutral vessel had
acknowledged this principle. e., that
free ships make free goods. Now Eng
land and France have both acknowledged
this principle, so that American goods on
the vessels of either of these Powers
would be safe from Spanish capture In
fact both America and Spain have "ir-
tually acknowledged the principle, by mu-
tual agreement, and the agreement is
such as to cover the signers of the decla-
ration of Paris"
In other words. the Spaniards would be
barred by the treaties mentioned from
making any inquiry touching a cargo on
board neutral ship. The doctrine that
"the flag covers the cargo" would hold |
AS to cargoes in American bottoms, If
Spain should capture one of our ships, |
bona fide foreign ownership Of cargo |
would have to be proved to exempt it |
from seizure and confiscation.
1t appears, therefore, that our foreign |
commerce would be pretty well protected |
in case of war with Spain, and that, as |
the Post concludes, what remained of |
American carrying trade would probably |
be transferred TO British ships. AS re-
would be in a very bad way, as our navl-
CATION laws prohibit that trades being |
carried on by n foreign nation, and it
would be constantly exposed to the depre
dations of Spanish cruisers and pri-
vateers.