The sun., 1918-12-24
THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.
Further Remarks on Vague Phrase,
with Illustrations From History,

4
he suggests that Great Britain and her
colonies might "form Il trade league
that would, through effective discrim-
mating tariffs, imposts and shipping reg
ulations. render competition on our part
practically impossible?
There is little doubt that tho United
States fosters her trade with her extra
territorial possessions; that the prod
ucts of the Philippine Islands and Ha-
wall, for instance, are imported into the
| United States on a different basis than
like productN from Australasia, Malay
| Ella, the Japanese archipelago or the
Dutch East Indies. II this be the case
then the extraterritorial possessions of
the United States, II they pay any tariff
at all. pay a preferential tariff, which
is Just and their due, and the other
countries pay such tariffs as are regu-
lated by international treaty. such. per
| haps, as may be guaranteed to them
under a most favored nation clause
| Therefore, what objection could the
United States, or for that matter any
| other nation, offer to the exercise of the
same privilege by Great Britain in reg
ulating her trade relations?
Now we learn that "the American dele
gates to the Peace Conference have re-
solved to advocate the sinking OF the
| surrendered enemy warships and to re-
slst any proposition 10 distribute them
on the basis OF naval losses" Why? Is
this to repay Great Britain for having
maintained the freedom Of the seas by
holding them In bay for three and half
years? Is 1t TO compensate her for the
| loss OF life she has suffered and the
enormous expenditure that she incurred
working for humanity? Her vigilance
kept the greater part Of the enemy ships
within port, and she is unquestionably
entitled TO a lions share OF the spoil
Suppose our delegates press their re-
solve, how are they going to answer
Great Britain II she should say, we
will agree to your suggestion provided
| that YOU also agree to sink all the en-
envy vessels that you have informed and
have taken over? Both these war ves-
sells and these merchant ships are worth
something, and their value should be
| taken into account in the final ADJUST
ment of the heavy indemnity that the
enemy must pay. What is right TOT
Peter n equally right for Paul. and 1t is
a poor rule that does not work both
ways-always assuming that the parties
concerned have entered the council OF
nations with clean hands
As for the freedom Of the seas, II may
not be out of place 10 recall the fact
that while the piratical Tcuton was sink
ing the shipping OF the world without
regard to the rights OF neutrals OF all
sizes. while he was numbering in cold
blood innocent women and children, oe-
fenceless seamen and wounded men.
his superiors. fully realizing that they
were violating the laws OF nations as
well as the laws Of God, sought TO divert
the public mind from their dastardly
deeds by clamoring for the freedom OF
the seas-that very freedom which they
themselves have repeatedly violated. The
Hun has put the brand OF Cain on his
own brow and the time las come for
one and all OF US TO see that he wears
lit-wears it, not for a day, a month or a
year, but for so long as & shall take him
to repay, eye for eve, tooth for tooth.
for all the lives that he has taken, al!
the harm that he has inflicted on HUI
mainly, and for all the destruction he
has wrought over the face of the earth
as well as for that which lies hidden
beneath the surface Of the waters.
| In regard to freedom Of the seas In
war. Mr.. Rushmore no doubt recalls how
the United States treated the attempt
made 10 define this by the Declaration
OF Paris in April, 1856. This declaration
sought TO modify the rules of maritime
law applicable in state Of war % by
abolishing privateering; cd by assert
Ing that the flag of a neutral ship covers
an enemy's goods Unless contraband of
war; 90 by declaring neutral goods
except contraband Of war free. and 90
by insisting that n blockade TO be bind
ing must be effectively enforced. In
these days OF "strict Accountability II
should not be forgotten that II is in the
light of tho exploits Of the Deutsch'
land that the last OF the above clause:
is OF utmost importance. for on these
exploits the modern Pariah. IL admitted
to the Peace Conference which God for
bid--will claim that his ports were not
effectively bloclIaded. The United State:
refused TO agree to the first OF the above
clauses-the abolshment OF privateer!ns
Expectations of The Alabama, the Florida
and the Shenandoah. British built ship:
armed and manned by the Confederate
States.
When the civil war broke out the
Federal Government with commendablt
determination set out to establish the
freedom of the seas. and did 80 BY cap
turing no fewer than 1,149 neutral trad
ing vessels, of which $50 were destroyed
and caused a total loss TO British owners
OF at least SS0,000.0OO. Has Mr.. Rush
more forgotten how freedom Of the sea-
was maintained In the famous Trent
affair. and what happened to Mason ant
Slidell? II will do us 10 harm TO re
member that there are others also who's,
feet has not always been "benevolentl1
exercised
Bit "autres temps. sutres moeurs,'
and the world has moved since 1s61-65
so that now the effectiveness OF a flock
ade must in each case be a question o
fact-as stated in the decision OF thu
Supreme Court in the Oinde Rodrigue;
case. ia u. s., p. l50-"to be deter
mined by evidence and with regard e
, all the circumstances" To-day. as II
1861, the place OF landing may be man!
miles distant from the ultimate destina
ton OF the goods, and the ostensibl
destination OF a neutral port is no guar
antee that the ultimate destination of
cargo is not the country of belligerent
This condition was felt during the clvi
. ! war. and received tho attention OF thI