The New York herald., 1922-10-13
Ships Liquor and the Treaty.

In their plea TO the United States
District Court for an injunction to
restrain, the Federal Government
from seizing sea stores of liquor
aboard their ships the Cunard and
Anchor Line companies maintain
>that the Daugherty opinion is con-
trary to the Commerce and Naviga-
tion Treaty of 1915. That treaty,
which applies to all American ports
and to all British ports except at first
ST. Helena, where NAPOLEON was then
imprisoned, was proclaimed Decem-
Der %, 1915, and in 1927 it was in
definitely extended
The treaty of 1915 provides gener-
ally for "a reciprocal liberty of COM
merce" between the United States
and Great Britain. 1t insures that
the inhabitants Of the two countries
shall have liberty freely and Sc
curely to come with their ships and
cargoes to all such places, ports and
rivers, in the territories aforesaid. to
which all other foreigners are per-
mitted to come" &c.
There is one phrase in the treaty
to which the United States District
Attorneys Office doubtless will point.
This phrase, common to most treaties
of such q nature, adds that the liberty
of American and British ships freely
to come and go is subject always to
the laws and statutes of the two
countries, respectively"
Does that phrase nullify the right
OF the British steamship companies to
plead the treaty of 1915 against the
Daugherty opinion and the conse-
quent Treasury Department regula-
tions? No one will say so who has
observed how treaties, whatever their
form, have always been read by
civilized nations in the light of int
national law.
Nobody denies the right Of ma
tion TO make it's own laws and to ap-
ply them to all parts of its domain.
A foreign merchant vessel, while sub
ject only to the jurisdiction of its
own State while on the high seas,
becomes subject to certain extent to
the municipal laws of the country it
visits. But under international law
the statutes of country are applied
to visiting merchant ship of a
friendly nation only when real offense
is given to the country visited.
by comity.' said the Supreme
Court of the United States in the
Wildenhus case, 'it came to be gen.
orally understood among civilized ma
| tions that all matters of discipline
and all things done on board, which
affected only the vessel or those be-
longing to her and did not involve
the peace or dignity of the country
or the tranquility of the port. should
by the Government be left to be dealt
with by the authorities of the na-
tion to which the vessel belonged as
the laws of that nation or the inter
ests of its commerce should require"
Would store OF wine locked in the
hold of the Aquitania, or bottle of
ale on her captains table, involve
the peace or dignity of this country
or the tranquility of this port?
When the cargo of an American
vessel was confiscated in a British
port in 1S41 on the ground that the
possession of such a cargo was illegal
in British territory the British quoted
the clause of the treaty of 1915 rela-
tive to the liberty of American ships
in British waters being subject to the
laws and statutes of Great Britain
But in that case, although the cargo
consisted of slaves, the United States
claimants won their contention that
slavery, not having been abolished
by general consent OF all the civilized
nations, was not contrary to the law
| of nations.
If the legality of American slavery
/ could prevail In 1S41 against the Brit
( ish statutes in so far as the rights
of an American vessel in British
port were concerned is 1t likely that
the volstead act will prevail in 1922
against the right of British vessel
in American waters to keep liquor,
under lock and seal, in her hold?
It is fortunate that the foreign
shipping companies have taken the
issue Immediately to court. The
more quickly this Government is re-
leased from its present position the
better II will be for our reputation
abroad as a respecter Of the laws OF
nations.