New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-11-13
PROPERTY AT SEA ~ WAR.

There was before the Chamber of Commerce
the other day a memorial addressed 10 the Pres
idcnt of the United States urging the fitness OF
calling an international conference at Washing
ton 10 consider the question of making private
uroperty at sea exempt from capture in time OF
war It was held that such action would he an
appropriate sequel to the conduct of this Nation
In the late war with Spain in refraining from
nriyateering and would carry to completion the
reforms of maritime warfare begun by the Dec
laration of Paris in 1886. The memorial was re-
ferred TO an appropriate committee of the Cham
Der If It shall finally be submitted to the Pres
ident ii will doubtless receive from him and his
constitutional advisers the consideration 1t de-
serves If 1t should he favorably acted upon
both by the President and by the proposed con-
ference. there would be effected a most impor-
tant and influential change in international law
In earlier and less humane ages private prop
erty rights were not respected In war. either on
land or sea. NOn-combatants and their posses
sions were al the absolute disposal OF the vic
tors. Then civilized nations agreed to respect
property rights on land, but kept to the old rule
at sea At an early date this country moved
for n further reform in n partial recognition OF
property rights at sea, to the extent that free
ships should make free goods. Away back in
1878 we embodied that enlightened principle in
a treaty with France and two years later an
nounced our adherence to 1t as a doctrine OF in
tcrnational law. Not all nations would thus
recognize t. however, and Ii remained merely
matter Of limited treaty stipulation until 1886
when some of the chief Powers OF Europe
united in formal PRONUNCIATION of 1t as fixed
rule of their possible warfare with each other
The Declaration of Paris indeed, not only rec
ognized the principle that free ships make free
goods" for which we had contended nearly
eighty years before, but 1t in detail proclaimed
! that the enemys goods should be exempt from
capture under a neutral flag. and that neutral
goods should be exempt under the encmy's flag
/ contraband of war being in both cases excepted.
Now, that was great victory for American
principles and this Nation would, Of course,
have given immediate and hearty assent TO the
Declaration had that been all Of 1t. But it was
not all The Powers prefiXed thereto nm item
abolshing privateerlng, and then insisted that
we should subscribe to the entire Declaration or
TO none Of il. Properly enough the United
States declined to subscribe TO it, because II was
unwilling 20 forswear the right Of priva teering
For at that time this country had one of the
largest merchant marines and one of the small
est navies In the world. TO have signed the
Declaration would therefore have been to place
us at a serious disadvantage. Our commerce
would have still been liable TO Seizure, and we
should have been restrained from using our own
merchant ships for It's protection. Nevertheless,
SO sincere was this Nation In It's desire to mitl-
gate the evils of war and TO safeguard the wei
fare Of non-combatants that 1t then put forward
10 the world the identical proposal made In this
memorial and offered 10 subscribe to the whole
Declaration. anti-prvateering clause and all, II
the European Powers would agree to make e.,