The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1915-07-28

IlelI IcSpeCIlVe politACo' iiiS1 az
to England. Is their policy damag-
ing US? Very probably not at all.
On the contrary it is very likely caus-
ing US to get a better price than we
could get if she were to let cotton
pass freely between all countries
neutral or belligerent. "What "
says the objector. 81 have heard
that cotton was bringing Is to Is
cents in Germany" "Do tell me
that it would not benefit us, by the
difference between these prices and
that at which England is setting to
be able to reach the German market
freely?" I do certainly tell you
just that. Those abnormal prices
in Germany, of which you have heard
so much, are created by England's
success in keeping cotton out of Ger
many. Remove that restriction, let
cotton pour into Germany as freely
as it can reach England, and the
price would be in Germany the same
as it is in our own ports plus the
cost of handling and transportation,
or approximately the same as it is
in England. On the other hand,
England is paying 10 cents for the
cotton she is capturing which is more
than it costs to buy it here and land
it in England.
As to Rights.
Now for the second question: Is
England acting within her rights in
capturing our property on the high
seas whether we are damaged there
by or not? On the surface it might
appear not. But there r condi-
tons under which the laws of South
Carolina as well as international law
recognize the right of n party to
seize the property of another without
previous bargain and appropriate it
20 his own use. For example, sup
pose I am driving a valuable horse
On a country road and meet you. You
ire in great danger of your life.
Nothing but great speed will save
you. With my horse you can prob
ably escape, but so far as you can
see, not otherwise. Having explain
ID the situation to- ME, I prove stub
| oorn and will not be persuaded or
hired to take you up and run my
horse at the risk of running him.
Time being Of great Importance, and
you being more powerful than I, you
limb into my buggy, forcibly take
my reins and drive my horse at top
| speed for hours until he falls dead.
Meantime you have escaped with
your life =. / may feel greatly out
aged at your treatment, but I can
aot successfully prosecute you for
assault or larceny, but if you agree
20 pay for my horse and any other
money damage you have caused me,
I can go no further. The law will
regard a" human lifesas more valu-
!aeb than a horse, no matter whose
life or whose horse it is. Of course
the analogy between this hypotheti-
cal case and u supposed grievance
against England is not perfect. It
is only offered to show that we can
not stop with saying that England
IAN not or must not interfere with
other countries, regardless of the cir
:umstances. The circumstances
have much to do with every case.
Now international law goes a step
further. It says any country at war
has a right to stop any. vessel at sea
whether the vessel belongs to a neu-
raj country or not, and after search
ng, if the vessel has goods for the
Use of the enemy in his military or
laval operation, such goods called
,ontraband of war, the capturing
'essel may take the captured vessel
into port and the cargo may be con-
iscated. Now it is true in the early
stages of the war England declared
cotton non-contraband. She was
seeking, as she is still seeking, to
void IS far as possible causing neu-
raj countries any inconvenience by
The great war in which she is involv-
I'd. But it soon developed that large
Quantities of cotton were reaching
Germany through neutral countries
md used by her for making various
kinds of high explosives. England
thereupon would no doubt have had
l perfect right to declare cotton con-
;raband and treat it as. above, but
still remembering her friendship for
his country, she waived her right to
hat extent, but still most naturally
insisted on preventing cotton from
ceaching her enemy. It is of no con-