Valdez daily prospector., 1915-03-20
SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1915.
ENGLAND'S FALSE STEP.

The course proposed is without
 anction in international law. How
 it justified? By the conduct of our
 adversary.
 newspaper. It is commenting upon
 4n action, not of the German govern 3nent, but of the British. Yet it will be noted that it goes over precisely bo the German position. What is in Eernational law compared with "nec- essity"? Anything is warranted which adversary before he smashes you. And as if MT. Asquith were jealous
 of the laurels of Chancellor Beth
 mann-Hollweg, with his "scrap of pa per" he declared in Parliament yes .erdoy that England was not going to
 be prevented from working her will
 on her enemy by Judicial niceties." This is in line with the comment of the London Morning Post, that Great Britain is now throwing into the sea F'the whole stranglng web" of 'ju- dicial network" There can be no sdoubt what this means. The judicial Sniceties are the accepted principles kof international law. The judicial net gwork is a solemn international agree #ment-the Declaration of Paris-to (which England set her hand and seal, Abut which she now proposes as coolly #to violate as Germany violated her Epledge to respect the neutrality of Belgium.
 5 If we put the thing thus sharply Fit is partly because of the deep re- Sgret ond disappointment caused by England's stooping to the level which Germany had previously reached-the level of nations that proclaim a nee essity which knows no law. Till now the British had taken care not only to have good cause, but to make it oppear good in the eyes of the world. But such a frank repudiation of in ternational law and of treaty as the English government today proposes, will go far to rob England of the moral superiority which she appeared to have at the beginning of the war. < She can no longer make such play s with the indiscreet avowals of the E German chancellor, for her own Prime Minister has placed himself in a class |, him. We do not say that Amer "2n statesmen would not have done s the same, in Mir. Asquith's place, un- der the same plea of necessity. It is no time for any nation to plume itself Enthusiastically on not being as others { are. But see what war does. It 3 makes not only laws but morals of no effect. It eats into the very fibre s of people and governments. Under ] stress of hostilities, they will do what $ in peace they would all call dishon' l orable in the highest degree. Let ! not Americans think that they, if they went to war, could escape it's fearful ! moral subversion and degeneracy.
 Since the English government ad mits that it is proceeding, or threat
 ening to proceed, in way unknown
 and repugnant to international law
 it is needless to point out how the i turning back of neutral ships, with I no contraband on board, from an en i emys ports which have not been de
 clared blockaded, would throw to the
 winds the precedents and rules of a i hundred years. What is proposed is a leap into the dark backward of Der lin Decrees and Orders in Council
 From that reign of terror at sea, il
 was supposed that the world had beer
 securely delivered by the Declaration of Paris in 1856. It was subscribed to by Great Britain, France, Prussia Austria, Russia, and several other na tions. The United States did not
 sign, because the Declaration did not come up to the terms of the historic American contention that all private property at sea should be exempt from
 capture. But the Declaration did lay it down specifically that "the neutral
 flag covers enemy's goods, with the
 exception of contraband of war" Il
 was in view of this and other agree
 mems of the nations that Admiral
 Mahan wrote in his Influence of Sea
 Power": "The principle that the flag
 covers the cargo is forever secure.
 But it is now openly flouted by the
 English government. '
 This is a terrible fall, In point ot
 lawfulness and of international right
 Tho nracfical results may mi nroYf