Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1919-01-03
Freedom of the Seas
From an Address by viscount Grey.

The question of the league of nations seems
| to become daily more important, not only for
itself, but because it is becoming more and more
clear that the subject is most closely bound up
with question sure to be of the greatest i'm
portance i'll our foreign affairs that of our rela-
tons with the United States of America: see
no reason whatever why the naval policies of
the United States and Great Britain should not
only not come into conflict, but should not be in
close cooperation and Cancellation. This ought
to be comparatively easy. provided the peoples
are perfectly frank on both sides and do not let
misunderstanding grow up as to what each
means.
We hear from. the United States that there
is greatsamount' of talk about the freedom of
the seas, that President Wilson attaches great
Importance to it, and that it is anticipated or
feared that it will create difficulties between
himself and our government. think it great
pity that so much has been said about the free
dom of the seas without its being defined. 1t is
quite true that there is considerable prejudice
against the phrase in this country, greatly due,
I think, to the fact that it is believed TO be
German phase. Now it is not German phrase.
1t is an American phrase. 1t was made in the
United States; and the Germans adopted it,
and used it for their own purposes, in sense
and with an intention to which we never could
have agreed. Therefore it has never become
very popular
What we have to consider is what the United ,
States means, what President Wilson Means
by the phrase freedom of the seas" Until he
defines it, until he comes to discuss it with .>ur
government, there is no need to anticipate that
there will be difficulty about agreement. What
does it mean? Does it mean freedom of the
seas in time of peace? If so, we agree. Where
ever the British navy has been in position to
exercise influence and power on the seas in time
of peace, there it has exercised that influence i'm
partially, for the freedom Of the seas for all ma
tons, without distinction
l think that even in the United States they
have some rule that foreign ships are not al
lowed to carry goods between United States
ports and the Philippines Some other coun-
tries have had rule of the same kind. Well,
we have never had rule like that. We have
been more completely for the freedom of the
seas in times of peace than any other nation, and
however strong our navy has been we have
never varied in recent times on that point, and
we have used our sea power, however great it
has been. for impartial freedom of the seas; for
every other nation, just as much as for our
selves, in times of peace I think we ought to
receive little more recognition than we do
receive for the fact that we have never used
British naval power in time of peace to make
the use OF the seas more easy for ourselves
without making it at the same time more easy
for others on the same terms (Cheers)
If the question is one of freedom of the seas,
not in time of peace but in time of war, would
say this. The United States in this war has
taken, as we all know-as we all most gratefully
recognlze-a part in the last two years of the
war without which we could not have had the
success which the allies have now won You
cannot emphasize that too much or express too
much appreciation of it. Since the United States
entered the war the United States has not only
acquiesced in, but as believe, has most strong
" co-operated in carrying out the blockade of
Germany. In the early stages of the war it was
not So Our blockade could not have been near
ly so complete. because the United States raised
many questions about it. But in the later years
OF the war the blockade was made complete with
the cooperation of the United States, and with
out that blockade success in the war could not
have been won. Indeed, without the blockade,
Germany might have won the war.
Now supposlng you had this situation over
again: Supposing you had again to fight war
like this against Germany which had behaved
IN the same way. 1t is impossible to suppose
that the United States is going to say that there
is to be no blockade. 1t is impossible that the
United States should now take up the line that if
lf had to deal with Germany over again the
blockade, which was an essential If success,
should not be allowed. Why that would stulti-
ty everything that they have done in this war.
think 1t is absolutely impossible | think it
really an insult to suggest that the United States
would IN future advocate any course in a war
suCH DIS is inconsistent with the line they have
taken in this war. and that is one of complete
blockade of the offending nation. If that be so,
do not we come to this, that probably what is in
President Wilson, smind is that freedom of the
seas should be secured to any nation which OBJ |
serves the covenant of league of nations; and |
should be denied to any nation which breaks |
the covenant of league of nations? (Cheers.)
IT that be so, then league of nations is the So
luton of the whole question. (Renewed cheers)
Freedom of the seas is bound up with the cues |
ton OF league of nations, and cannot be dis
cussed apart from it, On those grounds I be-
leve there may be complete agreement between
the twotcountries only if league of nations be
formed, if, when it is formed, it fails to per-
form its obligations, then of course the peoples
hands must be free
But what | want to see is league of nations |
formed not to make rules of war, but to prevent |
all war (cheers); formed to insist that when dis
putes arise between two countries those dis |
putes should be settled by some means other
than that OF war. If one nation is willing to set
tie these disputes other than by war as it would
be bound to do by covenant with the league of |
nations. and another refuses, then the whole |
league sides with the nation which is willing to |
settle against the one which is not
do not see why this country should not ac-
cept the formula that if league of nations is |
formed there is complete freedom of the seas, |
so long as the covenants of the league are OBJ |
served but it the covenant of the league is |
broken then there is no freedom of the seas,
and every means is used against the power
which has broken the covenant (Cheers)
III