Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-10-19
PROHI-
BITION

Yum pioiAAoieiOAi Jaws
~ into conflict with international
laws and are likely to raise a lot OF
knotty problems. The prohibition
navy" so called has seized some
British vessels, more than three
leagues from our coast and brought
them to port on the ground that
they were engaged in smuggling
c~ontraband goods designed for
our shores. This raises the question
of the freedom of the high seas.
Curiously enough we find our posi-
ton reversed with Great Britain's
ideas on. this subject. We fought
a war with Great Britain in 1912
over a very similar contention to
our own. Great Britain demand
ed the right to stop our merchant
vessels in the high seas and search
to see if there were any British
subjects aboard who had violated
British law. We disputed the
right of the British to search our
vessels for this purpose on the
high seas more than three miles
from the British coast. Now we
are claiming the right against
British vessels suspected of or
design to violate our laws, and the
British are claiming the right OF
freedom of the high seas. The
positions of the two countries are
reversed. Secretary Hughes has
sought to solve the problem by get
ting Great Britain to agree to a
special treaty giving each nation
the right to search and seizure
twelve miles from the coast where
it is suspected an alien vessel is
violating the custom laws of either
country. Great Britain has refus-
ed in a polite way, saying that
while she would gladly aid the
United States in the enforcement
of her prohibition laws. the prece-
dent set would be a bad n and
lead to other complications when
once the international law of three
leagues to the high seas from the
coast was set aside.
Then there Is the question of for
eign ships bringing liquor within
our three mile limit. There is no
dispute about the right of the Unit
ed States to make any laws it likes
within the three mile limit provid-
ed they do not conflict with our
treaties with foreign powers. 1t
is claimed that in this case the
decision of the attorney general
does conflict with such treaties, and
the owners of foreign steamships
have sought an injunction in the
courts. No doubt the matter will
be taken to the supreme court OF
the United States. The question
raised is whether a treaty obliga-
ton or a congressional statute has
superior force. 1t is claimed that
the supreme court in a diffent case
once held that a treaty agreement
was of superior force to a congers-
sional law, and in case of conflict
the treaty must be denounced before
the statute took effect.
But if the prohibition statute
and its Interpretation by the at
torney general is upheld by the SUI
prene court a new set of prob
lens will arise. For instance the
Italian law compels Italian ships
TO issue to its sailors a certain
ration of wine each day. Evidently
the italian government must re-
peal that law or wink at its viola
ton. or Italian ships must cease
coming to our ports. Indeed there
is considerable talk about British
and French vessels avoiding our
ports and taking on and discharg-
ing passengers and cargo at some
Canadian ports, and using raj
transportation to complete the
Journey. IF that were done there
would be an awful oar from oul
own port towns. Then there i:
talk about re~taliatory Legislation
against u ships when they entel
foreign ports. 1t is conceivable
that a whole flock of delicate in
ternational questions may arise
over our stringent prohibition
laws that are extremely unpopular
In Europe.