Evening star., 1917-03-13
had held that enemy goods were liable
to conhscation. no matter whether the
ship that carried them was neutral or
not. The United States refused to ac-
cede to this principle.
Stood Out for Neutral Rights.

not. The United States refused to ac-
cede to this principle.
Stood Out for Neutral Rights.
This country stood out for the rights
Of neutral shipping, holding to the
free ship. free goods" principle-that
Is. that the neutral flag covers enemy
goods, all except contraband; that If
neutral freighter is not carrying con-
traband the freight she carries is
safe on the high seas. no matter to
whom it belongs. Though this was a
revolutionary principle for a small.
was then to uphold. this country sue
ceeded in getting France to agree to 1t.
and a little later France extended the
rights won from her by America to all
neutral nations. 1t was this Frencn
attitude, for which the United states
was responsible, that led to the forma-
ton of the first armed neutrality. when
those rights began to be violated.
The armed neutrals declared Tor the
rights of neutral merchant vessels on
the high seas, and insisted that
blockade to be legal must be enective'
These principles they were prepared 10
enforce by the force OF thelr nava,
power, and they continued In this stano q
to the war between England, France,
Spain and the United States: These
neutral states did not actually go to
war. but they defended their commerce
with their armed forces This was
big step toward establishing the rights
of neutrals and the attitude OF the
United States was largely responsible
for it.
A second League of Armed Neutrality
was formed twenty years later, py the
russia In the interval another armed
neutrality obtained for time petWeeh
Denmark and Sweden. These two pow
srs in 1894 formed an alliance 1or the
purpose of protecting their commerce
'gainst belligerents by armed force
without actually proceeding to war. The
'niged naval squadrons OF Denmark
and Sweden patrolled the North sea 10
protect their merchantmen against as
gression, and this they did with con,
siderable success. Neither nation louho
it necessary to declare war.
Question of Conveys.
The second great League of Armed
Neutrals grew out Of the question OF
the immunity Of neutral merchantmen
under the convoy of war vessels OF
their own nation. This question is one
that may well have an important bear
ing on the present situation. When the
German submarine decree OF FEBRUARY
was first proclaimed many Americans
held that a good way TO meet this IL
legal measure was to send American
nercha ntmen under convoy OF Amerl-
can warships; and it Is measure
which may be resorted to in the future
1t is an accepted principle o, pr ln,sp- el
berless treaties. that belligerent yes
sells have no right to stop and search
neutral merchantmen when such mer-
chantmen are under convoy OF war
igerent has right to stop and ques.
ion the commanding naval of1cer o.
he convoys and the statement OF such
n officer as to the nature ana destlna- T.
ion of the merchant ships under ms
nrotectfon is supposed to be accepted
IS final The belligerent has no FUR
ther recourse. The United States stood
out for this principle before any other
great nation, holding that the word OF
honor of the ranking naval omcer war
all-sufficient-
In 1899, when England and France
we're at war, a fleet of Danish mer-
hantmen under convoy OF a Danish
rrigate was halted by English war
vessels. The Dane refused to allow
ny Investigation of the vessels, hold
ng. with the United States, that the
,y ord of the officer was sufficient. This
rafusal was followed by fighting be-
ween the Danish and English vessels
nd the same thing happened shortly
fterward on another occasion.
New League Formed.
The neutrals of Europe were dis
urbed by violation of what they had
come TO see as their rights and a
League of Armed Neutrals was formed
between Russia, Prussia, Sweden md
Denmark to uphold by force of arms
their right to go about their peaceful
business A year later England re-
considered her position and agreed to
the principle of exemption OF neutral
vessels under neutral convoy.
There is thus ample precedent for
the establishment of an armed ncu-
trality by nation in war time. 1t is
now a recognized principle of interna-
tional law that a nation may use her
warlike forces in order to assure her
commerce going unmolested about its
peaceful pursuits. The chief armed
neutralities of the past have been
maintained by leagues of nations rath.
er than individual nations, but the
principle is the same.
The armed neutralities of the past
shipping against illegal visit and
sidered illegal confscation of properly.
No armed neutrality has ever been
formed to protect neutral commerce
on the high seas against summary de.
struction without warning, because
such a policy has never been put into
operation by any nation before.