The New York herald., 1922-10-08
SUNDAY. OCTOBER s. 1922.
Flouting International Usage.

The opinion of the Attorney-Gen-
eral, on the strength of which the
President has directed that no liquor
shall be carried on any ships or in
any waters of the United States, has
two distinct phases.
One of these is the prevention of
the sale or transportation of liquor
on American ships. 1t ends the eff
fort Of Chairman LAsKER of the Ship
ping Board to make his vessels as
attractive to drinkers as the ships of
foreign lines have been.
That phase of the opinion is logi-
cal. Our ships are part of our
country. II we must be dry ashore
may be the pecuniary loss to Govern
ment passenger ships there must be
consistency
Just as the position of the Govern
ment in the first phase is logical, so
in the second phase it is illogical. 1t
is more than that. 1t is dangerous.
This country, announcing to all
the other countries of the world that
no ship, whatever flag it may fly, will
be permitted to come within the
three mile limit if it carries intoxi-
eating beverages, is doing something
that would be ridiculous if it we're
not so rash.
II this Government, through either
court decision or act of Congress, docs
not recede from its amazing position
the outer world will regard us as a
nation that is fiouting international
usage.
IT is true that we have absolute
territorial supremacy within the
three mile limit. But, as OPrEN Helm
declares in his International Law"
the three mile belt is. nevertheless.
according TO the practice of all the
States. open to merchantmen Of all
nations for inotfeusive navigation"
Is the carrying OF liquor offensive
when the ship does not intend to land
it here but to keep 1t under lock and
key? Certainly it is not offensive in
the eyes of most of the nations whose
collective opinion creates and main
tains international law.
Arc the great passenger fleets of
England to jettisou their stocks of
liquor at Sandy Hook and either
make the return voyage dry or so to
Halifax for replenlshment?
Arc France and Italy expected to
end their customs and contracts pro-
vidiug that wine shall be served TO
sailors who desire il?
IL North Atlantic Ocean traffic TO
no diverted from New York and Bos-
ton to the Canadian ports?
Are We going to forbid a Spanish
ship, carrying cask of sherry to
Cuba, to enter a Porto Rican harbor
TO take on oranges?
Are we going to compel Japanese
vessel bound for San Francisco to
throw bcr liquor overheard in the
middle of the Pacific or else forcgo
her stop at Hawaii?
When we make our Shipping Board
vessels dry all that we lose is money
But when we attempt to overthrow
the maritime usage of the civilized
world by any such proceeding as is
contemplated in the Daugherty pro-
gram we lose more than money. We
lose the respect and friendship Of
the nations we harass.
two IF
its rights at sea. IL once went to war
because another nation seized and
searched its vessels. II has been
Jealous of it's territorial rights and
has insisted upon them. The Su-
,prcmo Court of the United States, in
an opinion on the prohibition amend
ment, recently declared that every
American vessel is for some purposes
regarded as part of American ter
ritory.', Yet the Daugherty opinion
advises us to interfere with the ter
ritory that foreign ships are inter-
fere although there has been no at
tempt on the part of the vessels to
land liquor in the United Statesl
RI the other nations could AFFORD
20 laugh there would be something to
laugh at. The spectacle of the United
states. with its failure to enforce the
Eighteenth Amendment and its mis-
sxablc scandal OF bootleggng and
S.5ery. attempting to purify the car
goes OF ships OF other nations is ludi-
crous indeed.
What has led to this impossible
situation? The President has had
TO rely on the advice of his Attorney
General. That httorney-Geueral
says his opinion Is based on decisions
~ the 1gpromc Court. The Supreme
Courts decisions have been rendered