The sun., 1908-12-20


that his atrocious attack on Congress
has provided for all the world?
The Naval Conference in London.
The international naval conference
that has been sitting in London for
about fortnight has attracted very
little attention, which seems strange for
two reasons; first, because the questions
discussed would prove Of capital i'm
portanoe to a neutral Power like the
United States in the event Of Eu-
fopean war; and secondly, because the
discussion is likely to cause dissension
between Great Britain and her French
and Russian friends, who hold very
different views concerning certain points
in international law. We should men,
tion that the ten Powers represented in
the conference are the United States,
England, Germany, France, Russia,
Austria, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands
md Spain. -t.
N II may be recalled that at the Hague
conference of 1907 England showed her
self in favor of establishing an Interna-
tional Prize Court, to which might be
referred all questions concerning the
Treatment of neutral property at sea by
combatants. The German Government
went much further and proposed that
the court to be created should deal not
only with questions affecting neutral
property at sea but also with the treat
snient by combatants Of private property
belonging to belligerents How keenly
Interested the United States is in the
tquestion thus raised will be patent to
those who remember that we would have
subscribed to the Declaration of Paris
III 1855 had the European Powers agreed
that the private property OF belligerents
should be exempt from capture. In
1855, as again last year at The Hague,
Great Britain firmly objected to surren-
dBFingthe advantage which the possess
sion Of vastly superior navy gives her
in dealing with private belligerent prop
erty on the ocean. Nevertheless the
Hague conference accepted the anti
British view and drew up convention
bywhich fifteen judges were to compose
the new court. AS there exists, how
over, no body Of international law or
pfecedents universally recognized and
accepted with regard to the treatment
even Of neutral property, let alone pri-
yate belligerent property, the British
Goyernment declined to ratify the con-
vention as il stood and summoned the
present conference for the purpose OF
drawing up code universally acceptable
and settling the form of court which
shall administer it.
iqsIt lis extremely doubtful whether the
Fundamental difference between Great
Britain and Germany can be removed.
10 the question whether at sea private
belligerent property should stand on
the same footing as neutral property
Germany says Yes; Great Britain, No.
It is conceivable, however, that the day
may come when Great Britain may
regret her refusal to aoquiesce In the
principle upheld by Germany. Sup
pose that twenty years hence British
North America should be able 10 supply
the United Kingdom with most Of the
breadstuffs needed; it is obvious that
Great Britain, though she might find
herself involved in n contest with the
iUnited States as we'll as the Continent
Of Europe, could not be starved out
because her merchant vessels trans
porting Canadian grain to the mother
country would be immune from capture.
Immune from capture, that is to say,
provided foodstuffs shall not have been
declared by the conference now sitting
In London or by some subsequent
International agreement to be contra
band OF war.
This brings us to the second question,
ais TO which the present international
conference may find it extremely diff
cult, IL not impossible, to agree. Sup
Z pose that the ten Powers represented
in London shall consent to waive for