The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-01-09
Neutral Rights and American Food
Producers.

As a neutral power, the United States
unquestionably owe certain duties to both
the bclligerents in the present war, and,
thus far. We lave fulfilled them scrupu-
lousy. 1t behooves us, however, { remem-
Der that there are other duties, no less
binding, imposed upon us by our neutral
status. By a common interest and by the
common duty to promote the progress OF
civilization. We are bound to stand forth
with other neutral powers, some OF which,
like Holland and Portugal, are feeble. and
to uphold the rights OF neutrals, rights
upon which England herself may one day
rely for her national existence. 1t is not
our business, however, TO point out 10 the
British Government how seriously Eng.
lands future welfare may be compromised
by the assertion Of the principle that food
is contraband Of war. We may leave that
function to Lord RosEBERY, who has shown
himself ready to discharge IL. We shall
ave quite enough to do il we show our
selves properly alive to a paramount and
urgent obligation, the duty, namely. OF
safeguarding the actual and prospective
interests of American food producers.
We do but state a patent fact when we
say that the United States export moro
breadstuifs than all the other countries on
the globe combined. 1t is also undeniable
that Of food staples other than breadstuffs
we are the principal purveyors. We are
thus vitality concerned in the maintenance
Of those rules OF international law which
49, Aao foaaol a., a.
trails. Those rules are: First; a free ship
makes free goods, that is to say, ever an
cnemv's goods. II conveyed under a neutral
flag, are exempt from capture. Secondly:
neutral goods are exempt from capture,
even when found on hoard an enemy's YES
sci. Thirdly: food is not contraban nd Of
war, unless it can be specifically shown to
be bound for an enemy's port. which is
blockaded at the time.
Now, unless our export Of food staples is
to be interrupted for months, which inter-
ruption would inevitably cause indus
trial and financial calamity, II Is obvious
that the rules above cited must operate as
preventives. They must avert seizures Of
American food staples under the conditions
specified. We cannot tolerate repeated
violations OF those rules on the plea that, il
arrangements OF them can be shown here
after to the satisfaction Of a prize court,
due compensation will be made to the in
jured parties. Our breadstuffs would soon
ceased 10 be shipped il the sole remedy for
seizures was to be sought by the slow and
costly process Of litigation. It must
be remembered that an appeal lies in
England from the Admiralty Division Of the
High Court Of Justice, first, to tho Court OF
Appeal, and thence to the House OF Lords,
while, from the Vice-Admiralty Courts
abroad an appeal lies to the Judicial Com
mitteo OF the Privy Council. Sooner than
expose themselves to the risk OF becoming
involved in expensive lawsuits that would
last for many months, IL not for years,
shippers would decline to invest money in
the purchase OF American grain and -four,
and our breadstuffs would, accordingly, be
left lying in the hands OF their producers.
What would be the economical and fnan-
cial consequences OF a sudden s~toppage OF
our food export trade? We know what
happened at the time OF JRFFERsoN's
Embargo: Bankruptcy and ruin we're tho
outcome OF that obstruction to the free out
flow of our surplus products. Nor would it
be only the American farmer who would
suffer because his surplus grain was rem.
dered valueless; the railways would cease
to pay dividends, being unable to find
freight TO carry from the interior to
the ~scaboard; ships that now throng
our harbors would disappear because
outward-bound cargoes would be no
longer obtainable; our factories would
~languish, because the demand for their
| commodities from the domestic market