The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-07-26

President endeavor TO bring about an
understanding among tho principal mari
time. PoWers, with o view OF Incorporating
into the permanent law OF civilized nations
the principle Of the exemption Of all private
property al sea, not contraband OF war. from
capture or redistribution by belligerents. Other
matters closely affecting the rights OF neu-
trails to which attention was called were the
distinction to be made between absolute and
conditional contraband OF wal and the In
volatility Of the official and private cor
~respondenoe of neutrals. MIR. Hay went
on to show In this letter OF Instructions
that with reference to the duties OF neu-
trails toward @ belligerent the Held was
scarcely less wide. What, for instance.
was to be the treatment given to refugee
~belligerent ships in neutral ports? That
very question was posed, as we know.
during the Far Eastern war with reference
TO the treatment OF Russian war vessels
in French and Chinese hssrbors.
- ".
On pages5S8-594 Of the sixth volume VIII
be found explained by citations from the
original diplomatic documents the attitude
OF this Government toward the joint at
tempt made by Great Britain, Germany and
Italy In 1oo2-0s to enforce their claims
against Venezuela In q MEMORANDUM
communicated by Mr.. Hay on December 10,
1901, to the Imperial German Embassy the,
Secretary OF State recalled that in o mes
sage Of December 8 in the same year the
President had said that the Monroe Doc
trine 10 q declaration that there must be no
territorial ACKNOWLEDGMENT by any nom
American Power at the expense OF any
American Power on American soil, and
that Il 10 in no wise intended as hostile to
any nation In the Old World. The Prest-'
dent further said that this doctrine has
nothing to do with the commercial relations
OF any Of the American Bowers, save That
IL in truth allows each Of them to form such
relations as Il may desire. I'VE do not
guarantee he added. amy State against
punishment IL 1t. m~isconducts itself. pro-
vided that punishment does not take the
form OF the acquisition OF territory by any
non-Amerioan Power" Mr.. hay In his
memorandum OF December 10. 1901. pro-
ceeded to recite that his Exoellency the
German Ambassador had conveyed per-
sonally to the President n subsequently,
to the Secretary OF State the assurance OF
the German Emperor that his Majesty's
Government had no purpose or intention
of making even the smallest acquisition OF
territory on the South American continent
or the islands adjacent.
Il is well known that although Germany.
Great Britain and Italy kept their promise
not to acquire a square inch OF Venezuelan
soil they nevertheless obtained q mortgage
on a largo fraction OF the customs revenues
of La 0uayra and Puerto Cabello. which lien
was to last until the debts due respectively
to the three b~lockading Powers should have
been paid. 1t quickly became evident to
our State Department that II this sequesI
tration OF customs revenue to secure the
payment OF debts arising out Of contracts
should be extended to all the ports OF q
Latin American republic and should be
continued for an indefinite term OF years
such c~onfscation must sensibly affect the
destiny OF the debtor republic. which Is OF
course one OF the things that the Monroe
Doctrine pledges us, to prevent. Since
then our Federal Government has striven
to avert q repetition Of the Venezuela block
adefor the purpose OF enforcing contractual
obligations, and In the case Of Santo Do
mingo has itself i~nterposed in the role ola
collecting and disbursing agent between the
debtor country and its foreign creditors. -,
M. W. II. :
An English View Of Gcrmany's'sea Power
Il il a candid inquiry into the develop
mont OF German sea power. past, present
and prospective. which Is presented In the
book called The Admiralty Of the Atlantic.
BY PERcIvAL A. HIsLAM (Longmans).
The author studiously tries neither to ex-
-----A -,-l~-A1 thA afHNianNy ~ thu
German navy as 1t is to-day and as 1t may
be expected to be a dozen years hence.
He confines himself mainly to a comparison
of the number. size and armament OF the
battleships possessed by Germany and Great
Britain respectively. The personal factor
In the fighting value Of o navy he does not
undertake to consider. o he recog-
nizes that to express naval power in figures
Is difficult II not impossible. since the de-
Gliding element is tho personnel. The fact
IA recalled that in the late Far Eastern wal
Russian material was. feet for feet. su-
perior to the Japanese. Nothing could. how
ever, and nothing can ever compensate for
unframed and incapable personnel. no mat
ter what its standard Of individual courage
may be. The German navy may be better
or worse manned than the British. War
alone can dItb WOI IL quoosion'
Limiting himself therefore to a review
Of the material on both sides. Mr.. Hislam
arrives at the conclusion that the relative
strength Of the British and German battle
fleets may be shown in a table which for
Great Britain will be correct until 1909
and for Germany until 1910. only completed
ships not more than twenty years old being
reokoned. OF such battleships Germany
now has "a. carrying q total Of "a runs.
while England has 81. carrying in all 800
guns. At present Germany has no battle
ship capable Of meeting single handed
either the Dreadnought or the Lord Nelson.
but she has under way four vessels and IL
commencing three moro this year which
arc believed to represent a considerable
advance on the Dreadnought. The details
have been kept secret. but their arma-
mont is reported TO include sixteen II inch
guns, all OF which can be brought to bear
on either broadside. OF the four vessels
already under construction the Erssts
Bayern. was launched in March Of this
year. and the Ersatx Sachsen will fol-
tow In Sentamber. hut mona win ha