The daily Alaskan., 1919-02-01


 Of this notion the United States has always been the peculiar champion, the last time being at the second Hague conference, where our views were backed by Austria Hungary, Germany, and Italy, and opposed by Great Britain, France, Russia, and Japan. But see the following ar ticles;
 Freedom of the Seas, Americt'n.
 50 far as practicable every great peopIe should be assured a direct outlet to the great highways of the seas. Where this can not be done oy the cession of treritory, it can. no doubt be done by neutralization of Girec+ rights of way under the general guarantee which will as- sure the peace of itself. And the path of the Sea must alike in law and in fact be free. The free dom of the seas is the sine quo non Of peace, equality, and cooperation. It is 8 problem closely con rected with the limitation of naval armaments and the cooperation or the navies of the world in keeping the seaS at once free and safe. And the question of limiting naval arma- ments opens the wider and perhaps more difficult question of the hmi- taticu Of armies and of all programs Of military preparation. There can be no sense of safety and equal' fly if great preponderating arma- ments are nenceforth to continue here and there to be built up and maintained." (President Wilson, to the Senate, Jan. 22, 1917.) ~<
 Freedom of t e Seas, British.
 h the course of the nineteenth century. Great Britain has made notable concessions to this idea. Sha has abandoned nonbelligerent visit and search; she has sacriftc- ed the old doctrine of indelible d. legi9nce-"One an Englishman, sl- ways an Englishman"-which sup uorteG her earlier policy of impress ment; she has accepted the principle of free ships, free goods"; she has placed her commercial policy on a free trade basis; she claims, for the most part, no special advantage in the ports of her colonies. Again. it was she who issued the invitation for the London naval conference of 19OS-O9, Ter delegates to which puT sued course of action which for bids the idea that she then de- signed an offensive use of her sea power. During the present war, England has widely extended the belligerent rights of blockade; but this is in retaliation for Germany's irhuman use of the submarine. In general, England's position may De stated in this way: Being so near the Continent she can not afford to reoarG the problem of sea power as separable from the problem of land power. To decreaSe the striking power of her navy without a cores pondinU limitation of the huge standing armies Of the Continent would be merely to surrender con tineutal independeRCe-and ultim- ateIy her own-to the most powerful and ruthless State.
 Freedom of the Seas, German.
 Germany has sought to represent herself in the present war as the champion of freedom of the seas. " Her contention is that England's na' val supremacy enables her always Ga hold over the head of rival the threa. of wiping out it's overseas trade. Germany's effort has con sequently been, according to her spokesman, to establish a balance of power on the seas similar to that which exists on land. Unfor- tunately, the net result of her ef- f ort before the war was to stlm- ulate among the principal nations or the world, a most expensive and wasteful contest in the building ot war vessels, while since the out break of the war her endeavor to hold her own agains England on the water has led to the grossest inhu' manitv on her part, and to general anarchy on the ocean. The con cept of a balance of power at sas is, in fact, unworkable. On the land, power is attended by the re- sponsibility for good order over definite areas; but the Sea can not De thus appropriated. The only sensible alternative to British con- trol Of the seas, which after all has been for hundred years 8 sim gularly benign control, Is interua-. tionalization of the Seas. r1--.lz, -R s1.o S1na.g Ca5ssTl1JlTR Tfespl