New-York tribune., 1907-07-19
THE VOTE on IMMUNITY At SEA

Any measure is technically defeated at The
Hague which does not receive a unanimous vote
But it is possible for one to be technically de
feated and at the same time morally successful
Or, If it is not quite successful. 1t may achieve
much progress. In such light we may view
the result Of the voting on Wednesday on the
American proposal for the immunity of private
property at sea from seizure IN wartime. The
American proposal was supported by twenty
one countries, three Of which were not maritime
powers, and was opposed by eleven, one of
which could scarcely be reckoned n commercial
or maritime power. while several others on
each side were really negligible in both COM
mercal and naval affairs. In numbers Of cOun-
tries, therefore, the American proposal had
handsome majority. It also had n strong ma
tority-S04 100000 to 729OOOOO0-in the pop
ulation of the countries represented and If 1t
be objected that that majority was due TO
China, whose vast population is almost negli-
glble, II may be answered that that was little
more than an offset TO British India, which was
counted on the other side.
At least fully as pertinent the question Of
population is that of commercial interests. The
tonnage Of British shipping is so much greater
than that Of any other power, almost equalllng
that Of all others, that the side on which Great
Britain voted was sure to have the prepouder-
ance of mercantile tonnage. But with Great
Britain omitted the weight was tremendously
on the American side. The nations voting for
the immunity proposal had a tonnage OF a.
65O.O59 and those against il of 22,11593I. But
Of the latter tonnage 17G11O96 belonged to
Great Britain, leaving only 4,5O4,S41, against
the 1860 O59 IN favor Of immunity. Obviously
then, from the point Of view OF mercantile ton
mage the majority against the proposal was
purely British. Besides Great Britain only two
first class mercantile powers voted against It,
while four first class powers favored IT, We
are not of course, inclined to dispute that
Great Britain's vast commercial interests en-
titled her to more than ordinary influence In
deciding the question The propriety Of her vot-
ing in accordance with what she regarded as
her vital interests is not to be questioned.
It is possible, however, To call into question
the logic OF Il part Of Sir Ernest Satow's dec
laration of British policy. He perceived he
said, IN the American proposal logical ten
dency toward the abolition Of the commercial
blockade and that, he thought, would compn-
cate and aggravate matters and might prolong
war. instead Of shortening Il. He regarded the
two questions of immunity + private property
at sea and Of Limitation OF the right OF blockade
as inseparable. From that view we must dif-
fer The American proposal was practically for
nothing more than the application at sea Of the
rule now prevailing on land. Private property
on land is immune from seizure without com
pensation, yet there has been no impairment Of
the right Of blockade on land-that is, OF siege.
All that Is needed Is for the besieglng army TO
be able TO draw an efficient Gordon around
city and traffic with 1t is stopped. Private prop
erty is respected, but ii Is not permitted to be
borne into or out Of the city SO it would be, we
assume under this American proposal in sea
warfare A fleet securing command Of the sea
would respect private property rights, but would
80 maintain effective blockade
Of the enemy's ports, preventing. either ingress
or egress of commerce. In that case the private
shipping of the country which had lost com
mand OF the sea would be driven 10 ply between
neutral and alien ports or would have 10 lie
idle until the war was over. In either case the
direct sea borne commerce Of the country IN
question might be as effectively para!yzed as
though all its shipping had been seized or de
stroyed.
Only the direct maritime commerce, however,
would be thus affected. and that is one OF the
considerations which complcate the matter and
which must have some weight IN deciding it.
4 country whose entire coast was blockaded
could send all its shipping to neutral ports, and
those vessels could ply between the ports OF All
the world and those OF the beleaguered lands
next nelghbor and from these latter merchan-
disc could be freely shipped overland. Ihus, II
Uruguay should make war upon Monaco and
should blockade ell inc cotSL oL Le 4atI'A Cum
trv the mercantile fleets OF Monaco could make
Nice their terminal and thence foodstutfs for
the population Of Monaco could be sent over
land. and by the same route the exports OF Mon
AGO could continue to reach their accustomed
markets 1t is only in that sense that n block
ade could not be made effective We have no
Doubt that this consideration had much weight
at The Hague, besides those so strongly OK
pressed By Captain Mahan recently But we
must regard with some degree Of qualification
the strong support which the American pro
! posal received, and we must believe that the
discussion Of the subject at The Hague viii
prove to have been by no means void Of good.
THE ROSALSKY ORDER.