New-York tribune., 1911-03-06
|NSULAR Criticism
Partisan Views Of the Nay,I
Code-Mr. Bryce.
London. Februarr 4,

pTeSs. tuiI'Ht tV'Hii'hls On Two gre,,
transactions-the Declaration OF Io,.''
and President Tafts trade agreer.,,
with Canada-rem!nd one OF Chs,..
Reade's squire, who in the intensltv :.
his narrowness filed out his page v,,,
tie map Of the county and barely fo,,,
room In a remote corner for the ,,,-
terrestrial bail In their eagerness 4.
obtain a fighting issue against the "a,
ernment. now that war scares over a.
German navy fail TO frighten anyhod,
Unionist journals are denouncins IA.
Declaration Of London as sea IA.
made in Germany" and O foreign ,l.,
against British naval supremacy r...
are belated discoveries. since the CA.
for the proposed prize court at n.
Hague was published two years ago ana
generally accepted as great work n,
civilization. Those privileged spectat,,
who were behind the scenes during N.
naval conference are highly amused 4,
them. They know that the most d,n.
cult undertaking in the course OF N.
prolonged negotiations was the attemy
TO draw Germany into the agreement
II was accomplished largely throum
the tact Of the American delegates VII.
were supported by the British, Japan.
ese and French representatives.
II the Declaration OF London, 10 "a,
from being dictated TO England by N.
naval martinets OF Berlin, was reluct.
antly accepted by Germany. so also |,
It preposterous to describe II as an anti.
British plot. The international prir.
court was proposed by the British del..
gates at The Hague peace congress: Ii.
London Conference was called by 81,
Edward Grey after the best Admiralty
experts had been consulted; British IN.
fuence was paramount during the secrs.
sessions, and the Declaration when FOR.
mulated and signed involved fewer de-.
partures from English sea law than fro,
the precedents of Continental nations
and American usage. England did NOT
carry every point. The destruction o'
neutral prizes and the conversion q
merchant ships into commerce DESTROY
ers were not unequivocaily prohibited
and food was not included in the free
list. but was made, not absolutely con.
traband according 10 the Continental
practice. but conditionally contrahand "a
certain circumstances. Yet there ver.
substantial gains in the adoption OF Brit.
ish ideas respecting the law Of blocus.
and other belligerent rights, and abou.
one-third in values OF the Kingdoms for.
eign trade was carried TO the free list
with other marked advantages and safe
guards for neutral commerce. The Dee.
laration was a compromise more favor.
able TO England as the country with the
strongest navy and the largest com.
merce than to any other maritime power.
The insular partisan press assumes
that the naval conference was anti-Brt.
ish because it did not carry out every
detail Of the Foreign Office programme,
and objects to the proposed prize court
at The Hague as an essentially foreign
tribunal, in which the empire will be
outvoted by inferior powers. Do these
critics suppose that the ten maritime
nations represented at the Naval Confer
ence two years ago had any idea OF sup
plying the prize court with a British
code? A revised code was substitute
for ten conflicting systems and every na.
tion made concessions OF the give-and.
take principle. AS for the court OF sp-
peal al The Hague, II cannot be British
court such as may easily be established
by an imperial conference for the settle
meDt OF questions between the colonies
and the mother state. IL must be an IN.
terEational court similar 10 the arbitra.
tion tribunal already established. In.
stead OF seeking 10 create prejudice
against il as an anti-British institution.
these critics ought to welcome IL in the
who will have the right OF appeal TO
an impartial tribunal whenever they
Rave grievances in time OF war.
What these partisan critics really
want 10 do is TO turn back the hands to
the period OF Chatham and Pitt, whse
an enemy's goods were considered BY
british courts a lawful prize under any
flag. SO long as that doctrine prevailed
Sea Power was invincible and neutral
commerce was helpless Mr.. Bowles and
his followers desire return 10 the con-
ditions under which war was success
fully waged in the Napoleonic era. AZ
the Declaration of Paris stands in IN.
way. they are in favor Of denouncing IT,
with the safeguards for neutral COM
merce and the abolition OF privateerins'
and as for the Declaration Of London
and The Hague arrangements for arbl'
tration and prize courts. they assert thai
in the event OF a war with Germany
England would be stronger and SAFER
without them. These belllgerent par
tisans. obsessed with the idea Of this im.
pending conflict. expect the Imperie
to sanction their reactionary
ideas and 10 veto the Declaration
London as opposed to the interests =
the British Empire. Is II not more prop
able that the colonial premiers. being
less insular than these partisans. VII
decide that The Hague prize court 10 u
accord with the progressive spirit OF the
twentieth century. and that II is TOO ls'e
TO prohibit in war time neutral trading
and 10 challenge the opposition OF inc
civilized world?
Equally insular is some OF the pre-"
criticism directed against the uso'
agreement between America and can
ada. The charge is made that NJ
Bryce helped To bring about reu'
procity. and this is pressed home WIZ
acrid reflections on the partisansn'
of a Free Trade zealot in ta'V'