Mountain Home Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1915-1946, 1917-07-07


OF the Barbary States, but we fought
them for obstructing the freedom
OF the seas.
And in the decades ever since, al
though the imagination OF our people
mas 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 mamritime code
which should be framed and enforced
by a joint responsibility. Various
Watchwords have arisen in this long
controversy. We have urged the in
volatility of private property at
sea, we have asked for liberal free
list and narrow definition OF con-
traband. But our main insistence
has not been on any such details.
One salient idea has guided our di-
plomacy. The law of the sea must
be founded not on might but on right
and a common accord, upon code
binding all alike, which can not be
changed or set aside by the will OF
any one nation. Our ideal has been
not weakening but strengthening
OF legal restraint by the free will
and agreement OF all. We have
asked nothing for ourselves that we
do not ask for the whole world. The
seas will never be free, in our Ameri-
can meaning, until all who sail there
on have had voice in framing sea
laws. The just goVernance OF the
seas must rest on the consent OF the
governed.
No other question of international
policy has found the great powers
more divided. But in our insistence
ON this fundamental principle, we
have been strengthened by the sup
ported by many other countries. AT
times we have had the support OF
Great Britain. No one of our Secre-
taries of State has more clearly de-
fined our ideal than has Viscount
Grey, recently British Secretary OF
State for Foreign Affairs. None OF
our statesmen has ever gone so far
as he in advocating limitation of the
rights OF belingerents on the sea.
1t was ON his initiative that the
international naval conference was
summoned to London in 1909, and ii
was under his guidance that the emil
nent International lawyers and dip
lomats and admirals who gathered
there drew up the Declaration OF
London.
While there were in that Decla-
ration sections That did not quite
meet our approval and that we
should have liked to amend, the doc
ument was from our point OF view a
tremendous step in advance. For
although, like any effort to concisely
| formulate the broad principles OF
equity, it did not wholly succeed in
its purpose, it was at least an honest
attempt to arrive at an agreement
of sea law, based upon mutual con-
sent and not to be altered by any
bellingerent in the heat of the con-
flict.
But the Declaration of London was
mot ratified by the British Parliament,
for the point of view prevailing then
in England was that power depend
ent almost wholly upon its navy for
protection could not safely accept
further limitations upon action at
sea unless there were compensating
limitations on land powers. And
this latter concession Germany con-
sistently refused to make. The
conference therefore came to naught.
And the London Declaration having
been rejected by the strongest mari
time power, its Endorsement was
postponed by all the other countries
involved. Our motives, however,
remained unchanged; and our Gov
eminent persisted in its purpose to
secure a general ratification either
of this declaration or of some SINH
lar maritime code.
There has been in our diplomacy
one more outstanding aspiration. We
have constantly sought to substitute
juridical for military settlement of
disputes between nations.
The genesis of this idea dates from
the discussions over the Federal or
ganization of our 13 original States,
which were almost as jealous OF their
soyereignties as are the nations OF
Europe today. The first step toward
the League of Honor, which we hope
will at last bring to the world, was
taken when our 10 States agreed to
disarm and submit all their disputes