Waterbury Democrat., 1901-12-12
PROPERTY AT SEA.

The Seisure of private property at sea IS lawful under present usage, but con sideration of the matter will show that it is not expedient. Under this custom the commerce of both bellig- erent nations suffer Ruin is brought upon hundreds of merchants on both sides. commerce is destroyed, the in- habitants of both countries are beg Gared by war prfces--and to what end? It does not shorten the war or contrib ute materially to the victory. If we look at the example of former peri ods," said Lord Palmerton, i've shall not find that any powerful country was ever yanquished by losses Sus- tained by individuals Even the de- struction of an enemy'S commerce without damage to our own profits nothing: for our modern theory of eco monies has demonstrated that q nation Is made more prosperous by the pros perity of it's neighbors, and that the impoyeriShment of one country brings financial depression upon others, even upon rivals and enemies. This truth is made the more evident as the peo- pies of the earth are drawn closer to- gether by trade. by improvement in navigation. and by the cable. Demor- aliZation in the financial center of one country is quickly felt in the financial centerS of the other nations. The mar ketS of the world are dependent upon each other. We have been taught to love our enemies, although we have not often put the precept into prac- tice; we must now learn that q care for their material welfare is good pol icy as well as good morals.
 Thus it may be seen that it would not be advantageous for q nation to destroy the property of an enemy's merchants, even if it could completely defend it's own commerce. But no na- ton is powerful enough to guarantee complete immunity to it's seq trade The commerce of both belligerents 1 must suffer, so that each sustains a double damage: direct loss i'll it's own commerce, in addition to an indi-
 rect loss through the needless impov- erishment of the merchants of the en- emy The present international GUS tom permitting seizure of private prop erty at sea is a direct menace to the prosperity of every shipowner and of | every merchant who ships his goods | abroad. It is harmful financially and
 useless politically. Under different
 circumstances of life and trade it was perhaps a useful instrument: but it is now out of date. and, like an ancient cannon, is as dangerous to those who
 attempt to make use of it as to those
 against whom it is directed. Com
 merce has at times made protests l against this sword of Damocles above it's head; but commerce haE not yet
 lifted it's voice in imperious de
 mand. as it's importance would justify 1 it ill doing.
 One cause of this apparent indiffer- ence on the part of shipowIers is that, while they see that the law of seizure l is ruinOus to their own individual inte- 1 rests, they have a vague idea that for l some occult reason the law is neces-
 sary to the state for political pur-
 poses. This idea is erroneous. The l law of seizure serves no good purpose l i'll the state. On the contrary, it is
 most pernicious in that it tends to de-
 stroy the commerce and wealth which
 uphold the state.-James Augustus
 Whiteley in the Forum.