Evening star., 1928-05-13

0ing into action.
ton dependent upon those supplies for
its very life.
Then there Is the question oi hostile
airplanes hunting the cargo boats as
they near the ports but are still IN the
high seas.
The prospect of warfare Is rapidly
changing for those who look out of
European windows: and, whatever the
admiralty may have In mind, the ques-
tions which areNarising In the field OF
the technical expert are being taken
over into that of politics by those who
claim that the only settlement lies In
eliminating the cause Of the danger
and not in attempting TO outtop the
world In armaments.
Sources Of Discussion.
SO far, most of this political discus
sion has originated In Labor or Liberal
circles. and It's thesis Is apparently fully
developed In the volume by Comdr.
Kenworthy and George Young. abstracts
OF which have reached America. An
other group is that which has given
most attention to the League OF Nations.
But If any color of political partisan
ship Is discoverable in these circles. this
can hardly be said of a document pre-
pared as a draft treaty between the
United States and Great Britain by
specialists In international law. which
states the whole case for freedom OF the
seas In terms consonant with the kel-
logg proposal. One Of the proponents
of this draft In a juriSt Of worldwide
fame. whose name Is already attached
to documents of lasting historical Inn
portance. The text itself. copy OF
which lies before me, has not yet been
circulated in England and referred to
in discussions.
It is q strange turn In history that
now the British, who opposed this doc
trine mt Paris, are making IL their own.
and beginning 10 inquire IL we will hold
10 1t and apply It as a part OF our con-
tribution to the elimination of war from
the free action OF sovereign states.
But there is q still stranger element
In this debate. IL Is that the very
obstacle which the British have hitherto
found In Geneva to the whole-hearted
acceptance Of League obligations--the
danger of a League blockade involving
Great Britain In hostilities with the
United States-is now seen TO be the
possible means for overcoming those
other obstacles which 1t advanced at
The Hague conference OF 1907. When
the American proposal OF freedom OF
the seas reserved both contraband and
the right OF blockade the British saw no
end Of trouble In defining the excep-
tions. The shore blockade was no longer
effective, and there was no way Of de-
limiting the permitted acts of an In
tercepting fleet from the violation of
the freedom OF the high seas, since
most of the blockades of the future
must be directed from the high seas
themselves The absence OF Rcograph-
ical or other visible limit OF the field
Of blockade rendered the whole PROPOSE
ton illusory.
But now there is a different kind
OF frontier possible. consisting of d
juristic line drawn between the ''pri-
vate" warfare OF state for Its own
ends and the public" warfare In de-
fense Of the community OF nations and
waged only against q violator OF the
peace covenant itself. This juristic
distinction means the prohibition of all
war at sea but that of legitimate de-
would bring back the old vicious circle
OF private or national warfare and ma
tional armaments--but defense Of the
peace OF the world against that power
which reyiyes the iawless right OF war
as the instrument of Its national
policy"
Question Of Contraband.
Moreover, the historic question OF
contraband assumes a new form The
problem shifts to a discussion Of what
acts Of coercion should be permitted
against a power that runs amuck II,
the world. Once more we are brought
back to the old question OF Article
XVI of the covenant OF the League
with It's obligations upon League men,
bers To cooperate against the COW
enant breaker and In defense OF the
victim.
Great Britains guarantee OF peace
In the treaty OF Locarno Is but a more
specific application OF this principle
But In both these cases the underlying
justification IN the same as that which
legitimizes force In any society. namely,
defense against violence.
The principle of the freedom of the
seas does not mean keeping them open
for the highwayman or bandit. II
would be maintaining anarchy at sea,
In the name OF freedom II we insisted
upon the right to make ourselves the
accomplicc Of an aggressor nation by
The free shipment OF our supplies ia
IT, under the support and protection
OF our Navy. That kind OF freedom
is the very antitheSis OF our ideals and
our interests. for where anarchy exists
violence is sure to follow
Only by the development OF an Or
dered community OF nations. conscious
OF their interdependenee In war as In
peace, can there be any permanent
reality In this most far-reaching revo-
luton IN international relations. The
cost Of freedom Ia its maintenance. In
some form or other, therefore, we must
recognize the second aa well a. the frat
part OF President Wilson's formulation.
The seas shall be open except for
the enforcement OF international Cow
enants": for upon those covenants de-
pends the freedom itself,
Thus II may yet be found that the
very one OF the fourteen points which
wes surrendered In Paris~~under the
belief that II was no longer valid with
the United States In . League Of Ma
tionsrwWill prove to he means for
leennciling our historic claims to he q
Nation apart from otherR~~a neutral by
tradition and oonvietion~-~with the OBJ.
legations OF a member Of the cons
munity OF nations The isolation passes
as the oceans narrow, and freedom
upon them makes them narrower still,
by the renewal Of those barriers which
keep nations further apart than mere
disi.Anoe~~diStfnst. suAplclon and mis-