New-York tribune., 1907-07-01
PRIVATE PROPERTY AT. SEA.

The United States undoubtedly occupies
strong ground at The Hague in its advocacy
of the exemption of private property at
from capture i'll war. 1t has, TO begin with,
the advantage of consistency which has at
various times been strongly impressed upon
the world. As we have already recalled, it
was because OF its advocacy of that principle,
and because of the unwillingness of European
powers to accept il, that this country declined
10 become q party TO the Declaration of Paris
in 1856. That Declaration began with the pro-
vision that there should be no more prlvateer-
ing Agreed" said America, IF you will also
provide that there shal! be no more preying
upon private commerce" No said Europe,
private ships may be seized, but they must
mot fight" At that America declined 70 sign
the treaty. holding that If private vessels were
TO suffer the pains of war they should also eX-
erciSe its privileges. Senior Barbosa, Bra
lillian delegate at The Hague. further showed
last week that that principle was advocated
by this country long before 1856 and that it is
held by practically all the American republics
Tint the American proposal would be an
tagonized was expected though perhaps few
expected that it would be chiefly opposed by
Russia. We reviewed in these columns the
other day the elaborate and impressive-but
not g-arguments against it which one
Of our foremost American authorities, Captain
Mahan. has put forth. Mr.. Julian s Corbett. III
The Nineteenth Century" also argues against
1t from the British point of view, and we no.
tice that so sane and temperate journal as
"The Spectator of London, commits itSelf 10
the same view of the case partly on general
principles and partly for the special sake or
British interests The late Sir William Har-
court is also quoted most emphatcally against
the exemption of private commerce from capt
ure on the ground that there is no security
lin war unless we are strong for offence as
well as defence" Nevertheless, support OF
the proposal is now stronger than there seemed
ground for expecting it TO be a few days ago.
Austria Hungary and Italy were last week
openly declared TO be in favor of its and there
is reason for thinking that Grodt Britain ana
Germany may ultimately t-ke the same ground.
AS for the opposition expressed by Russia, we
have vet TO learr It's precise grounds; and 1t
was at anv rate somewhat discredited in adj
vance bv lie reminder that Russia formerly
favored :.Ie American principle.
We must add that, while some of the argu-
meats against the exemption OF private prop
erty are impressive and worthy of careful con-
sderation others are quite specious and inef-
fective Thus we find The Spectator gravely
stating that "for a maritime power 10 give up
"the right Of capturing private property at sea
sis analogous to a land power giving up the
fright TO beleaguer cities If the right of capt
s'ure at sea is abandoned, then to make the
analogy real and complete the powers ought
"to agree that in the case of land sieges only
government wagons and government property
"shall be prevented entering cities undergoing
siege and that the roads in and out 'hall be
kept free for private traders" Not so, for 1t
is not proposed 10 abolish the right TO blockade
a port any more than that to besiege city.
and there is no thought OF eXemptng blockade
runners from capture. 1t is already well es-
tablished principle that a blockade 10 be legal
must be effective, and not a mere paper proc
Iamation The American proposal with regard
TO private commerce is n logical extension of
that principle namely, that in order to have
a right TO suppress its enemy's commerce bel
ligerent must establish effective control Of the
sea If it is able 10 blockade its enemy's ports,
il can stop that eneTy's commerce. private as
well as official, just it may besiege q city
if il has control Of the land around it. But.
failing TO blockade the enemys ports effec-
lively, it cannot send commerce destroyeTs to
the high seas to prey upon commerce. any more
than it could send rading parties across coun-
try to seize and destroy private property there.
On the whole, the logic of the case seems to
be on the American side, and we shall not be
surprised TO find great maritime powers con-
Guiding that their individual interests also lie
on the same side.