Der Deutsche correspondent. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1841-1918, 1916-11-24


Did they not have that freedom be-
fore the war? What are they really
talking about? The answers to these
questions touch the deepest sources
OF the unrest that famed into this
war. They touch the heart Of the
problem OF permanent peace and un-
restricted international trade.
On a territory the size of Texas
Germany has about 70,000,000 peo-
pie They cannot be fed from the
products of that soil, even under the
present high stage of cultivation, nor
can they be employed manufacturing
solely for themselves. They must
export their manufactures TO agricul-
tural countries in order to buy food
stuffs ard raw materials. If Ger
many cannot continue this eXporta
tion, then she must export her men,
expatriate them to other more for
tunate lands. OF course, in war time,
the German population can be fed on
the products Of Germany, plus small
importations from nearby countries;
but the people are subjected to heavy
sacrifices and fed on such reduced
scale as they would never accept in
peace. They would emigrate and be
lost to Germany.
England is in precisely the same
situation. She, too, has an industrial
population that cannot live without
ovorGea markets and sources of sup
ply
With sea law in its present state,
an industrial nation, so dependent,
lives with a sword Of Damocles over
its head. The constant peril is the
peril OF having its oversee limo OF
communications cut in war, and so
having its food supply stopped. The
only naticn which is safe from the
peril is tho one with the strongest
navy in the world; namely, England.
Having Safeguarded herself by the
possesslcn Of the strongest navy in
the world, England has refused to
let sea law be developed so as TO pro-
tect the commerce OF other countries
from aggression by that navy That
is, il is England which has constant
ly blocked international acceptance
OFT he principle Of the immunity OF
private property at sea IN war time,
whose principal advocate has always
been the United States.
a chain is as strong as its weakest
link. German foreign trade-or the
foreign trade OF any country--is as
secure as its security in the emergen-
cy Of var. How secure Germany's
foreign trade was, is evidenced by
this war, in which Great Britain cut
her supplies OF food and war mater
ials. Only by the greatest self-sacri-
fee and ingenuity mas Germany been
able to do without these imports or
to find substitutes for them. IL Ger
man Decentralization had proceeded
10. hAr IA a
the task OF meeting the problem OF
an intercepted food supply would
have been insuperablc. Germany has
the right to demand, and win de-
mand, that this peril be removed for
the future II is a security she de-
serves,
England, herself secure, has been
unwilling that others also should be
made secure by sea law which for
bade navies being used to strike at
! International commerce. No one
! could strike her; she insisted on re-
naming free herself TO strike. Tho
present order of sea law IS, therefore,
against the interests OF every nation
in the world except England Every
other nation may find itself ut war
with England and, as belligerent,
be starved OF some or all Of the me-
eessities of life. Moreover, when
England is at war all neutrals find
Englan1 cutting oil their commerce
with her enemy, depriving them Of
! their established markets and
sources OF supply. England's s sea law
| is to the advantage only of herself
and her allies, and TO their adyan-
tage only during the particular war
when they remain her allies.
| But The United States is as in
| terested as Germany in this principle
| OF Che free seas. The United States
has stood for the principle OF The im-
munity of private property at sea in
war time ever since the Napoleonic
wars, when she experienced the hard
ship of loss of our continental mar
! kets due to the British blockade The
/ bitter experience of the South in
| 1914-15, deprived Of its $500, 900
| bale market in the Central powers
| proves to us thai we are now in
! finitely more dependent on undis-
turbed foreign foreign markets than
! we were in the Napoleonic wars.
| Germany has been for this same
principle because her increasing in
; naturalization forced her to face the
contingency OF war, with its destruc-
tion Of her food imports. BY different
paths the United States and Ger
many, as Mr.. Lansing wrote in July,
1915, found themselves fighting
shoulder TO shoulder in their ad-
vocacy of the freedom Of the seas.
which means their freedom for all
commerce in war time.
no one matter is OF such impor-
tance for us as this matter of the
! freedom Of the seas. Up on its ac-
ccptance depends the spread OF in
ternational commerce. No ono viii
20 on buying the necessities Of life
from any one else unless the possi-
bilisy Is forever removed that sea
i power will again be used against
them as it has been used against
Germany in this war especially in
liberation Of our innovations in sea
law and treatment of ncutrals
There was an international law
l A. l.. Innf