New-York tribune., 1908-08-22

certain other captured prizes into nor. .rs h.
40. heei that he could spare other men from
iAs Aaio 70 convey this other captured vessel tn
port ne might destroy the vessel wh.ther d..
sposeo or condemned the cargo would be lost 70
1ie american owners II would make little differ
ence to them financially
IF England and the TJr,te5 s+.+a- A, -
trails. have never recognized the right of belI,s
erent TO destroy a neutral ship then the claim
~ouAo nave 10 De taken before prize court The
commander would not be able to say that he has
turnisned al the prize he can SPARE or thst
he wouio rather sink the ship than allow her 70
reach hostile port
lne American view is that the condemnation Of
a snip is judicial function which cannot be per-
rorTned ny the commander of a cruiser; tnat the
pi11o court must determine whether the vessel
should be condemned There are soma other st.tas
that take the view that 1t is all right 10 DESTROY
the ship at sea provided there is reimbursement
iof its loss afterward There differences along
Ihis hne. The coming London conference may try
70 frame q rule Of law for the government of the
international Prize Court in such cases and where
IneFe Is divergence Of view this subject the dele
gates would try to compromise harronize their
views into general agreement which may serve
as a rule for the government of the International
FTize Court Il this could be done. 1t alone would
be valuable result
NATIONAL sELF-TNTEREsT BEHIND Prof.
ECT."
The success OF the proposed conference at Lon
oon VIII depend, Of course upon how skilfully
compromises
eIlNs 1Eoin the great maritime powers be per-
suaded to support them Whenever any PROPOSE
ton is drawn by any power represented in the con-
ference and IL is offered for adoption II is always
fair to assume that national sef-interest behind
the project and before the other
nations at the conference act they will undertake
10 discover Just how that proposition would affect
their own national self-interests- On any question
OF prize which there is now divergence of view
among the principal maritime powers the dele
gates will make many rules they for in
corporation into general international agreement.
and they will go far they in this direc-
tion without jeopardizing the OF the gath
eTing-
while the scope Of the conference cannot be pre-
dicted there many questions Of vast impor-
tanee that might be considered There is the prob
lem Of contraband. Great Britain proposed, at the
Hague conference, to abolish absolutely me dis
tinction OF contrahand OF by proposing 10 al
low II TO go without capture at sec, and in ex-
change for that It proposed by her that the
rules OF blockade should be made more rigorous
When the British proposal was made there were
ether nations who indicated their Willingness to
discuss adoption Of that principle II the British
delegates would only state just what substitute they
would offer replaee the abolition Of contraoand
The United States delegation for instance, re-
sponded that they could not accept any change IN
+b rules of blockade and contraband then existing
because they were not satisfied with the rules
which England had proposed her substitute
Great Britain would like to abolish the as
ttnction of contraband because that government
would be confronted with the question OF rood
supply and would like 10 have provisions come
into the British Isles in the event or great
war in which she might be engaged She thinks
she is strong enough with her navy on the high
seas TO keep her own ports from being olockaoed-
On the other hand. France wants the existing
status continued. So does Germany
The United States, all along, has favored the
immunity of private property. non-contranano
from capture al sea, and proposed this at ooth
the Hague conferences Great Britain faVors
the capture OF private property at sea She ne
Iieves her navy strong enough to defend her own
commerce. We don't do so-on grounds or Au-
r7auitv The American view at The Hague was
that the private property Of all citizens or the
sienatories except contraband OF war. should be
exempt from capture or seizure
FoUR-HEADEp DECLARATION.
whether the question of contraband is or Is
not considered at the London conference there is
one matter that would probably be regarded as
q serious question for this government in the
event Of war between any two great maritime
powers Of Europe. and that is the failure OF the
United States government to declare its adherence
to the Declaration OF Paris Of 1885. There were
four heads to that declaration. It provided, first
for the abolition Of privateering; second that
the neutral flag covers enemy's goods, except con-
traband; third that neutral goods, except contra
band are not liable TO capture under the enemy's
flag. and, finally, that blockades must be main
taned by a force sufficient really to prevent ac-
cess 70 the coast of the enemy in order to be
binding This declaration originally signed
by Great Britain Austria, France. Prussia Russia
and Turkey. The United States adopted the sec
ond third and fourth propositions independently
OF the first. but offered 10 adopt that one, too'
18th an amendment providing that the private
property Of citizens Of a belligereut, the high
seas should be exempt from seizure by the war
ships OF beIligerents except It be contraband.
But as the United States did not adhere to all
four of the points Of the Declaration Of Paris we
have never signed it. Until last summer Spain
the only Continental nation that had not adhered,
and Mexico and the United States the only non
signatory Western nations. Spain and Mexico de-
clered their adherence the declaration last
mer and the United States is the only great mari
time power that has not yet signed We have,
therefore, not abolished privateering and have used
that as a lever for negotiation, but everybody
knows that the United States government would
not resort privateering in the Of war. Not
having signed the Declaration Of Paris. the prin-
clpe Of the neutral flag covering enemy's goods and
the enery's flag covering neutral goods could not
De invoked by US. Since most Of goods are
shipped in foreign bottoms IT might prove serious
rnatter-this failure sign the Declaration of
Paris. One European maritime power at with
another might seize a vessel flying the enenly's
nag but carrying American goods not contraband,
because We have not formally adhered TO that dec
laratiou, and the consequences might prove serious
enough TO drag this country into the war"