TaÌˆgliche Omaha tribuÌˆne. [volume] (Omaha, Nebr.) 1912-1926, 1916-11-20

advantage only during the par
lticular war when they remain
her allies.
But the United States is az
interested as Germany in tins
principle Of the free seas. The
United States has stood foi the
principle Of the immunity o.
private property at sea IN wal
time ever since the Napoleonis
wars, when VIZ experienced the
hardship Of loss Of our cont
mental markets due to the Brit
ish blockade. The bitter ex
~perience OF the South in 1914
is, deprived Of its 3,5O,OOO-bal,
market in the Central powers
proves to us that we are nov
infinitely more dependent OIL
undisturbed foreign markets
than we were in the Napoleoni'
wars Germany has been To-
this same principle because he
increasing naturalization fore
ed her to face the contingency
of war. with its destruction o
her food imports. BY differeui
paths the United States an'
Germany, as Mr.. Lansing wrotl
in July, 1915, found themselve'
fighting shoulder to shoulder il
their advocacy Of the freedom
OF the seas, which means then
freedom for all commerce II
war time.
No one matter is of such i'm
portance for us as this MATES
Of the freedom Of the seas. Up
on its acceptance depends thu
spread OF International com
merce. No one will 90 on buy
ing the necessities OF life from
any one else unless the posi-
bility is forever removed tha'
sea power will again be use'
against them as it has been US
ed against Germany in this war
especially in liberation OF on
innovations in sea law and treat
ment OF neutrals.
There was an internationa
law which guaranteed to neu
trails a large measure of freedom
of commerce with a belligerent
like Germany, oven in the face
OF the navy Of a dominant sea
power. That law we have al
lowed TO be abolished phase,
Of its abolition are the papei
blockade" the blacklist, tn,
mail seizures.
Perhaps they are right who
say that we refused to assert
these rights against England be
cause such assertion would bene
fit Germany. 1t is a historical
fact that we had no scruple;
about asserting our rights
against Germany's alleged alb
use Of the submarine, in spite
Of the great benefit we thereby
conferred on England.
Certainly Englishmen con
slider our a~cquiescence in theii
abolition Of sea law as a tang
ible, a voluntary contribution &c
their cause. The Weekly Ma
tion," OF London, says that the
United States has shown her
sympathy with the Entente al.
lies in many ways:
Is it not about time for us ia
cease this policy Of sacrificing
our own vital interests to the
furtherance Of the cause Of Great
Britain? Some people dream
that we can abandon interna
tional law now and at the peace
conference reconstruct il to in,
clude its old contents and in
addition the principle of free
seas. We cannot do that. In
ternational law is by its nature
a set Of precedents. We are al.
lowing precedents which break
down that law not temporarily
but permanently. Even were =
peace congress to frame a code
of international law, no one
would dare believe in it's en-.
forcement. If this great neutral
republic refuses to exercise its
ample power TO enforce it now,
against an arrogant sea power,
who can trust a group OF neu.
trails to enforce 1t in future
against a belIigerent who has
learned to disobey it?
The surest way for the Unit.
ed States to have power to make
new sea law at a peace congress
is now TO acquire the record Of
having enforced existing inter.
national law when the neutral.
peaceful world, for whose bene.
lht that law exists InnLnd