The New York herald., 1922-10-18
England's Jealous Guardianship.

Englands Jealous Guardianship.
Great Britain's reply to our Gov
ernment refusing to join in treaty
extension of the territorial three mile
limit on the sea Is specifically adj
dressed to Secretary HUGHEs's re-
quest of last June. This request for
British assent to stretching of our
territorial waters from three miles to
merely to facilitating the seizure CT
liquor by way of being smuggled into
this country.
AT the time the note was written
the International storm had not
arisen over Attorney-General DAUeH-
ERTY's ruling that a foreign vessel
could not bring liquor into our ports
even under seal and intended for use
only on the high seas. Perhaps such
a thing was not then dreamed Of.
So this reply to Secretary HUGHES
does not directly refer to the great
question involved in the revolution
airy Daugherty opinion. But there is,
nevertheless, a significance about the
British note in it's relationship to the
big question now at issue Of the CEN
tury old right of foreign vessels to be
regarded as the soil of their own SOW
ereign states in so far as they do not
actively disturb the local laws of the
various ports in which they may be
harbored or the territorial waters
they may be plying.
The<note concerning smuggling is
deeply significant in respect of the
bigger, broader and more crucial
question because of the reason given
by Great Britain for not consenting
to the three mile elasticity even to
catch smugglers who are as abhor-
rent to the British Government as
they are to the American Govern
ment. The British note with entire
candor and uncompromising firmness
refuses to countenance the twelve
mile limit proposal because the Brit
ish Government "do not feel they can
properly acquiesce in the abandon
ment of a principle to which they at
tach great Importance.
| If the international laws governing
the rights of all vessels are held to
be of so great Importance even in the
matter of smuggling, which Great
Britain desires to assist this Govern
ment to suppress, then OF how much
greater importance must these inter-
national laws be held in the matter
of rights and privileges and customs
that have the sanction of all the
world outside of this country and
never have been challenged by this
country until within the last few
days.
The principle involved is precisely
the same. The rights at stake are
exactly alike.
And Great Britain's jealous guard
ianship of these international laws
and rights is no more than Frances
and Italy's and any other seafaring
nations.
AS to the extreme departure which
the astounding Daugherty opinion
seeks to make for our own special
purpose from the international prin-
ciples, laws and usage of ages, the
example now being cited in France IS
not far fetched. The French nationa!
laws, like the Italian national laws,
require vessels sailing under the
French flag to serve regular Slot
ments of wine to the crews Unless
French ships live up to this obliga-
tory practice of giving the crews wine
with their meals they cannot operate
lawfully under the French flag and
they must suffer severe penalties.
The Daugherty opinion, therefore,
means in effect that no French ship
can come to this port, since the
French Government says that no
French ship can sail the high seas or
fly the French flag unless 1t serves
wine to its crew. And then the French
critics of the Daugherty opinion perti-
nently ask: What il French law
said no foreign ship carrying bread
could come into French port? What
IL the American law said every Amer
lean vessel must serve bread to its
crew at every meal or the ship could
not sail the seas and fly the Ameri-
can flag? What attitude would the
United States Government take to-
ward the French Government"
What, indeed, Attorney General
DAUGHEBTY!