The daily Nome industrial worker., 1917-02-08
THE SUBMARINE QUESTION.

Because the SuDmdflhe queSIloh has reached all acute stage is all the more reason fer the more careful consideration of the controversy.
 When in February 1915 GermaE declared the North Sea and that section of the ocean contiguous to The Iittoral of Che Allied nations bIockadcd and announced an inten- tion to sink all ships could be en- rouutared, there arose shout ot indignation from the United States press. The mere fact that Great Britain had not been called to ac- count for it's blockade of German and neutral trade, did not in any way mitigate the criticism of the German sea policy.
 The American government resur- rected the principle first formulated by John Marshall when Secretary of State in 1900 and during the Ma poIeouir war. and later and more clearly enuuciated by James Madi- son when holding similar office that blockades to he effective must be complete Madison stated it this way: 'Thc law of nations requires 10 constitute q blockade that there should be the presence and position of force rendering access to the prohibited place mauifestly difficult and daugerous''. That's clear euoueh. But it was written and laid down before there were any subma- rincs thought of. The conditions faced by Marshal and by Madison were such as that ships entering or attempting to enter port would be captured and brought as prizes into uorts.oi the blockading powers. Ohvi- ouslv it was impossible for ships to effect a blockade of an enemy coun- try if the nation seeking to main lain such. is itself subjected to blorkadc. And in order to under stand how different and much more dincuIt it is to consider the subma- rine question it need only be pointed out that the underseagoing capacity of the [ boats enables them to issue forth from blockaded nation and in turn subject an enemy nation to blockade.
 When John Marshal considered this proposition he never for mi mute conceived of such thing as sinking the vessel attempting to en- ter q blockaded port. He sad II the effectiveness of the blockade bt dispensed with, then every port o1 the belligerent powers may at al times be declared in that state, and the commerce of neutrals be there by subjected to universal capture Marshal's conception of things is H. luminating as showing the reason why he supported the princlpl' which has just been referred to. I'll this principle be adhered to, the ca pacitv to blockade will be limited bl the naval force of the belligerent and in consequence, the mischief t( neutral commerce cannot be very uXteusive.'
 That is the American doctrine which however has been accepted bl all nations as a principle of inter national law, but before the adyen of the submarine.
 Very clearly both Great Britail and Germany have failed to recog nize the principle in actual opera tfons and both have received notes in protest of their policies.
 The difficulty of acting upon thi principle upon the part of Germany every one can see is extreme Ger many has her ports blockaded t merchant and other ships, but Ger many can evade that blockade b the use of U boats Submarine are not subjected to blockade an Germany contends that for that req son the American policy is archai and needs amplification an amendment.
 The importance of any principl of law is directly as the propert interests affected This may not | admitted by all, but it is correct the last analysis. John Marsh; rightly insisted that 1t was of 'th last importance to neutrals that tn principle" (that is the effectiv blockade doctrine) "be unimpaired'