New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-11
A SAFEGUARD IN WAR
ruE AMERICAN PROPOSAL FOR EXEMPT
ING PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM SEIz-
IRE MOTIVES OF ENGLISH
AND FRENCH ACTION.
London. Nav Al

London. May 81
rho proceedings of the Congress at The Hague
=. followed with close attention and excep-
,.,sI interest in England. There is nothing
IN sight on the Continent except the hurly-
,.,v OF the Dreyfus case in Paris; and there
,he closest possible approach TO stagnation
:. english politics. The Peace Congress fills
-. European stage. and public attention here
:. mt diverted from II by any side show at
,.r,s or abroad. II has already gone far enough
=. convince cynical observers that something
IN he done to promote the peace of the world
-. tho creation OF permanent court OF arbi-
...,,on 10 which nations may voluntarily and
-, under compulsion refer their grievances and
sssrences There Is also a reasonable pros
-. not for disarmament. but for the adoption
:, various methods OF minimizing the evils Of
oar on land and sea. Among these projects
aha extension OF the famous rules of 1855 for
,hs regulation OF the high seas in time of war
o,nies the foremost place in relation TO Brit
!sh interests
The Declaration OF Paris undoubtedly set q
s,sher level OF International action for the regu-
,.,on OF the open sea than had been known
rrsv,ously. 1t abolished privateering; 1t estab-
,,shed the protectorate of the neutral flag over
.rer,,es' goods. with the single exception OF con-
,rohand OF war: II exempted with the same
.xcention neutral goods from seizure even under
=, enemy's flag: and II enforced the principle
chs, blockades in order to be binding must be
,rsct,ve These four points were accepted by
,,s treat Powers. which arranged the condi-
,,ora OF peace after the close OF the Crimean
War but the United States stood out against
them because they did not go far enough 1t
declined to be bound by them because they Old
MT secure exemption from seizure and capture
for all private property in time OF war This
nrnciple would have minimized the evils or
warfare on the high seas and have been great
rain for civilization. 1t was the ground OF
justification for the action Of a progressive
country in refusing to Join in an international
,earue against privateering; and naturally IL
has been proposed at The Hague as the Amerf-
can method OF reducing to the lowest terms the
rroblem Of maritime warfare In the future III
carried into effect It will restrict the destruc-
tive energies Of modern naves to contests De-
tween fghting ships. 1t will secure the COM
merce OF the world against attack or disturbance
during the period OF hostities.
TREND OF NATIONAL OPINION
The trend OF national opinion on this question
NAV be easily forecast. Weak nations. like the
Netherlands. Denmark and Norway and Sweden
with large merchant fleets and no relays of
battleships behind them will naturally advo-
cate the principle Of the exemption of private
property from seizure during war time 1t APP
peals strongly TO the enlightened self-interest
Of great maritime Powers Germany, with rap
idly increasing commerce, and naval resources
small IN proportion to the financial interests in
voved in its protection and maintenance. will
also favor this progressive policy. Russia.
Austria Hungary and Italy will also be drawn
into q similar attitude Of friendliness to the
progressive policy proposed by the United
States The two Powers whose position is I'M
certain are those with the greatest naves. Eng
land with the largest merchant feet In the
world. also has the most powerful navy avail
able for tie protection of It's vast shipping In
terests france with the second navy In
readiness for immediate duty on the high seas
has also immense maritime interests to attack
as we'll as to protect in time Of wcr. There are
many considerations to be weighed In the bal
ance before practical policy for either Of these
rival naval Powers can be intelligently defined
with reference to the American principle of ex-
emptlon Of private property from seizure.
The adoption of the American safeguard for
al property not contraband Of war. whether
under a neutral or an enemy's flag, would de-
and France of much of their destructive ener-'
gy England, as the predominant sea Power,
With It's chain Of coaling stations encirclng the
GLOBE. would be called upon 10 abandon the
privilege OF raiding and marrying commerce and
distributing prize money in the naval service
France would also tie her hands in advance OF
war and bind herself to respect the rights OF
private property in campaign with England
or Germany. England would have the compen-
sating advantage OF a comprehensive safeguard
Tor the protection of her vast commercial In
terests and Of merchant marine that whitens
EVERY sea. This safeguard would be less I'M
portant TO France, because her shipping inter
ests are small in comparison with those Of Eng
land. France would be required to make a
greater sacrifice than any other maritime
Power in agreeing to sanction the American
principle Of the sanctity Of private property on
the high seas in time Of war Her navy is to-
Gay the most formidable menace to which the
shipping interests and commerce of England
are exposed. The potential value Of her naval
ornaments would be greatly diminished ~ an
International veto were placed upon the seizure
and confscation of private property at sea-
ENGLANDs VIEWS.
In England opposite views are taken Of ma
Nonal policy on this question which America
has raised practical measure for reducing
the evils of naval warfare. There is only one
consistent advocate Of the old-time ideas and
polieies OF the Manchester school. This is "The
Manchester Guardian" which has promptly
supported the American proposal and urged the
shipping and mercantile interests Of Great Brit
am 70 bring their influence to bear upon the
Foreign Office IN favor Of an international rul-
hg Tor the defence Of private property on the
0'her hand the imperiallst writer's for the press
VINO nave been defending year after year naval
estimates aggregatng f25, 800 600 for the main
"nance and enlargement of the feet and its
coahng stations. are not prepared TO accept
without reserve this enlightened policy for the
projection OF commercial interests. They do not
consider II either 81 ke Or nrlident for the