New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-27
PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA.


There will he great reluctance TO DeneVe one
of the reports now circumstantially current con
corning the Peace Congress Mt Inc hague l Hat
Is that certain Powers object to the cohsidera-
ton Of the proposal TO exempt peacelui com
merce at sea from capture or destruc'lon' anu
that they are cndeavoring to exclude IL from 'he
Congress. 1t Is an open secret that the cn'ei vi
the Powers referred 10 Is Russia whiie TIE
Power that Is most pressing the matter LOT coh-
sideration is the United States. III would DE uii-
pIeasant to be compelled to believe the report
because it would produce the convlcuon tna'
there was in the Congress disposition eh'reV
NJ variance with what we apprehend 10 De the
true spirit and purport Of the gathering ana one
which ~ It became dominant would assuredly
mako the whole work OF the Congress or no
avail.
The essential thing in this Congress is, as we
pointed out the other day, that all the par'ici-
mating Powers shall act in unquestionapiy goou
faith and unsclishly for the promouon OF the
common cause Of peace and relief from the Dur
dons Of bIoated ornaments. The moment IL
should appear that the Congress was being useu
as vehjcle for furthering the selfish aims OF
some one Power or group OF Powers and for
oiv,nc Il advantages over the others, that mo-
mont its usefulness would he at an end and its
members might as well go a-fshlng. That we
believe to he exactly true and 1t Is because We
CO heliave and because the truth Of il seems so
obvious and fundamental, that we hesitale ~
credit the report that Russia or any o'her o"ei
Is seeking to exclude this topic from cohsidera-
ton bv the Congress. For In doing so she wouiu
Seem 10 be endeavoring. through forced teen
nicality of construction, to further her own indi-
vidual interests at the expense or those OF lhe
other Powers: and to do that would be fatal
Wo have spoken Of the proposal in question as
being nut forward by the United States IL Is
United States proposal. 1t was formally maze
by this Government at the time OF the Declara-
tion of Paris. and II was formally renewed by IT,
in the Presidents Message and in Congressional
action. less than n year ago We do not suppose
all Americans are unit in its favor We DO not
know that even all the American commissioners
Mt The Hague are in favor OF 1t. There is much
10 he said on both sides of IT. But what does
seem beyond dispute is that 1t Is legitimate
and pertinent matter for consideration by thls
Congress 1t Is quite true that IT Is not NEIL
TONED in Count Muravieff's circular. That doc
ument mentions the Geneva Convention of~lsof
md the Brussels Conference of 1874 but makes
no mention Of the Declaration of Paris. We can
nor however assume that omission 10 nave
been deliberate and for purpose and now 10
act as a bar against the Introduction OF any
matters pertaining TO the Declaration OF Paris
/ Moreover the circular did not assume to lay
down hardandfast rules for the guidance, or
rather the control Of the Congress. 1t was ex-
pressly suggestive and not mandatory Tho
I only thing in 1t really inhibitory in purport was
the remark that, of course, all matters pertain
! ing TO the politics OF the individual Powers and
matters of existing treaty stipulation must be
barred out That principle Is manfestly just
and proper But the proposal concerning prop
ertv at sea cannot by any possibility he placed
under that inhibition.
The reasons why Russia might oppose the eX-
cmptlon of peaceful commerce from seizure
need not be discussed in detail. at least until
there is fuller assurance that she does oppose
not only that exemption, but even the consider
alton of it by the Congress. Her commerce is
small and her navy is large. especially In the
! element of commerce -dcstroyers. while the ma
lions with which 1t Is conceivable she may
some time he at war have notably large COM
mercial marines. upon which a hostile navy
might prey with terrible effect 1t will not
escape observation that in that respect Russia
and the United States are similarly situated 1t
would be to our advantage. Just as 10 Russia $,
10 be free 10 attack an enemy's commerce. But
that advantage is abnegated by this country in
making the proposal for the exemption Of COM
merce in a spirit of sinking individual interests
I'm the welfare of the whole. We not yet
ready to believe that any other nation takes n
less generous view Of the case. at least to the
extent Of trying TO apply gag rule to the Con
eress ANY nation has n right to vote against
the enactment of the proposal into interna tonal
law. But TO seek to prevent the consideration of
It by the Congress would seem much like repu-
diatlon Of the principles upon which the Con
gress is based.