Der Deutsche correspondent. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1841-1918, 1917-01-24

phc freedom OF the seas is the sine
qua non OF peace, equality and CO.
! operation. No doubt, somewhat
radical reconsideration or many OF
tne rules OF international practice
| hitherto sought TO be established
may be necessary in order 10 make
the seas indeed free and common III
practically all circumstances for the
use OF mankind, but the motive for
such changes is convincing and COM
pellinG. 'phcre can be no trust or
intimacy between the peoples OF the
world without them. The free,
constant, unthreatened intercourse
OF nations is au essential part of the
process OF peace and OF development.
II need not be difficult TO define or to
secure the freedom OF the seas if the
governments Oh the world sincerely
desire TO come to an agreement con-
cerning IL.
The President says truth.
Thege must be no more "sover-
eighty Of the seas
Neutrals must never again be
asked to submit to the intolerable
insolonce which has marked the
conduct OF the belligerents toward
the commerce of neutral States with
each other and With the belligerents
themselves.
III we are to remain at peace our
selves throughout the period OF an
other war there must be definite.
specific determination OF neutral
rights, and sure guarantees that we
and other neutrals shall never again
! be subjected TO such injuries as all
noutrals have sustained during this
war
With land warfare and blockades
Of frontiers il is evident that the
United States mas little concern.
! Those are questions for the con-
tiguous and jealous nations of Eu-
rope TO settle for themselves
But the future freedom of the
water highways Of the world to the
commerce Of all neutral nations
must benceforth be guaranteed by
| something stronger than the insti-
tutes of international law and such
| declarations and covenants as those
Of Paris, London and The Hague.
The one thing absolutely essen
tial to our peace and security here
after is Our Own Preparedness to
insist upon and to maintain the free
dom Of the seas.
Definitions Of the rights of neu-
trails upon the high seas are clear
ly written into the Declaration Of
| Paris ana the agreements made at
Tho Hague are reduced to more
specific forms in the Conference Of
London
But though the Declaration OF
Paris and the agreements made at
! The Hague We're signed and ratified
! by the present chief belligerents,
and though the Declaration of Lon
don was assumed by all to have the
force Of International law, practic-
ally every right OF neutrals on the
high seas guaranteed by these COW
enants and treaties has been repeat
edly violated by belligerents during
this war
BY the Declaration Of Paris Great
| Britain, Austria. France, Prussia,
! Russia and minor Powers bound
! themselves to observe four rules OF
maritime law which they agreed
should have the force of interna-
tional law and binding on all OF
them
The second Of the four rules
reads:
''Thc neutral flag covers enemy
| goods, with the exception of contra
/ band of war;
The third reads:
Neutral goods, with the eXcep-
ton OF contraband of war, are not
Liable to capture under the cnemy's
flag"
The signatory Powers thus agreed
that when engaged in war they
would not capture enemy goods car
lied on neutral ships OF confiseato
neutral goods found on enemy
ships unless the goods, in both cases,
were ccntraband Of war.
And see what has been done TO
neutral ships and neutral goods IN
this war!
AS there was universal agree
meent that neutral goods voyaging
from one neutral port TO another on
neutral ships were per sc inylolaDle,
the only question involving the right
TO capture or the right to be un-
molcstcd was the question OK the
nature Of the goocs--Whcther aD-
SOlute contraband or conditional
contrabaBd or non-contraband.
Disputes as to the character OF
GARAGES and what might and might
not be declared contraband became
| NNNNN huilhA Nlit DOtl N"A DhN eNN
! Russo-Japancso war
During the Boer war British war
! vessels stopped German merchant
men voyaglng 70 neutral ports. Upon
this the German Government ylgor-
ously protested that there was no
rule OF international law by which g
belllSerent could stop and search
neutral Vessels bound to neutral
ports, and showed every determina-
ton to maintain It's protest by force,
IL necessary.
This dispute. was tidcd over by
Great Britain ceasing to stop and
search German merchant vessels Sc
bound to neutral ports
Two years iater the question agalr
arose between Russia and Great
Britain, ana ths time the British
Government adopted the previous
German contention and warmly up.
held the rights Of neutral commerce
even when British cargoes were
bound for helligeront port.
The Russian Government had is