The Tupelo journal., 1917-08-24

$500 NNt'
march of Napoleon's grand army with
detached Indifference, his Continental
Blockade and the British Orders in
Council at once affected the lives
of our citizens intimately and dis
astrously.
So it was in the case of the Borbary
pirates. W. had no interest in the
quarrels and civil wars of the Bar
barry States, but we fought them for
obstructing the freedom of the seas.
And in the decades wei since, al
though the imagination of our people
has been engrossed in the immense
labor of winning the West, our De-
partment of State has never lost sight
of the compelling interest that we
have upon the seas, and has con-
stantly striven to gain the assent of
all nations to a maratime code which
should be framed and enforced by a
joint responsibility. Varions watch
words have arisen in this long contro-
versy. We have urged the inviola-
bility of private property at sea, we
have asked for a liberal free list and
a narrow definition of contraband.
But Jul main insistence has not been
on any such details. One salient
idea has guided our diplomacy. The
law of the sea must be founded not
on might but on right and a common
accord, upon a code binding all alike,
which cannot be changed or set aside
by the will of any one nation. Our
ideal has been not a weakening Aait Il
strengthening of legal restraint by
the free will and agreement III VII.
We have asked nothing forxoufselves
that we do not ask for the whole
world. The seas will never hS%frea,
in u American meaning, until ali
who sail thereon have had j xoica id
framing sea laws. The Just govern
ance of the sea must rest m the con-
sent of the governed. !
No other question Of international
polity has found the great powers
more divided. But in our in~sisterce
on this fundamental principle, we
have been strengthened by the sup
port of many other countries. AT
times we have had the support of
Great Britain. No one Of our Sec
retaries of State has more clearly de-
fined our ideal than has Viscouf,t
Grey, recently British Secretary o.
State for Foreign Affairs. None of
our statesmen has ever gone SO far
as he in advocating limitation OF the
rights of belligerents on the sea. 1t
was on his initiative that the inter-
national naval conference was sun
moned to London in 1909, and it was
under his guidance that the eminent
international lawyers and diplomats
drew up the Declaration of London.
While there were in that Declara-
ton sections that did not quite meet
our approval and that we should have
liked to amend, the document was
from III point of view a tremendous
step in the advance. For although,
like any effort to concisely formulate
the broad principles Of equity,ita did
not wholly succeed in its purpose, it
was at least an honest attempt to ar
rive at an agreement on a complete
international code of, sea law, based
upon mutual consent and not to be
altered by any belligerent in the heat
of the conflict.
But the Declaration of London was
not ratified by the British Parliament,
for the point of view prevailing then
in England was that a power depend
ent almost wholly upon its navy for
protection could not safely accept
further limitations upon action at sea
unless there were compensating linn
itations on land powers. And this
latter concession Germany consistent
" refused to make. The conference
therefore came to naught. And the
London Declaration having been re-
jected by the strongest mar
thine power, its endorsement was
postponed by all the other countries
involved. Our motives, however, re-
NAMED unchanged; and our Govern
ment persisted in its purpose to Sc
cure a general ratification either Of
this declaration or Of some similar
maratime code,
There has been in our diplomacy
one more outstanding aspiration. We
have constantly sauQhf To snhsfifute