Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-09-16

to use their fleets against any breakers
of this new law Of the world.
It is acknowledged that these revela-
tions border on the sensational. Free
dom of the seas" Is an older American
doctrine than the Monroe Doctrine. IN
defense of it the United States mace
war on Great Britain in 1872. we
maintained our historic policy for the
first two and one-half years OF the
World War to the point OF almost tax.
ing sides with Germany on account OF
the repeated seizure OF American sn1ps
bound for neutral European ports. AS
soon as we entered the war We reversed
our position. We became an effective
agency In destroying freedom. OF the
seas" as far as the Central powers anu
European neutralS were concerned.
u. s. Mines Were Barriers.
Never in history was there . more
effective barrier to such freedom" than
the great mine barrage laid by the
United States Navy across the Nortn
Sea in 1918. It was one OF the tnlngS
which primarily led to the collapse Oh
Germanys resistance.
Broadly speaking, the reputed dispo-
sition of the United States to abandon
its century-aged contention Is due 10
what one authority describes as "a
desire to reconcile preaching ana prac-
tice," In other words, If the American
NAVY in war should again find 1t neces-
sary to use its power to hamper neutral
Shipping as well as the commerce OF It's
enemy, it Is felt that Uncle Sam should
no longer make any bones about oe-
claring here and now that he Will 40
exactly this If and when the emer-
eency arises. That the United States
procedure as q belligerent would dupll-
cate our procedure in 1918 Is not
seriously to be doubted.
This Is far from meaning that the
new orientation of American naval
policy contemplates piratical poicy
a. sea such as the German U-boats
carried on or any other high-handed-
ness for sheerly aggressive purposes.
It means merely that the United States
wants to remain free, within the law, 10
use its tremendous naval Strength
against the commerce OF natlon OF
nations which embark upon aggressive
war in defiance Of the Kellogg BRAND
pact. A. .,,o,,
about to be laid down by the Onlteo
States Government - complete naVal
parity with the most powerful meet
afioat-leads to the obvious convictlon
that this costly establishment Is 70 pe
kept up for a material purpose. we we
have committed ourselves not 70 use
our naval power as an aggressive IN
strument of national policy.
Two Objects Paramount.
But as America is about to place
itself on q level of equality with the
worlds greatest navy, the keneest In
terpreters of her determination discern
in it two specific objects. The first
and paramount object Is the national
defense and the capacity to keep the
American nag respected on the nlgn
seas. The secondary object ID TO De
ready to throw our influence on the
side of checkmating any breaker OF the
new international law constituted by
the Kellogg BRAND pact.
In a nutshell, America Is about READY
to come around to the view that the
seas are free for peaceful peopleS-as
free as they are at this 1nStant-but
not for peoples which wantonly defy
international law. The United States
Navy resorted to every recourse at It's
command to close the seas under Such
circumstances in 1917 and 1918. What
is now in the wind Is a reconsideration
Of the whole international situation a.
it has been so vitality altered by the
general pact for remuneration OF war.
SeNAUOT 6OIdn . &teAtuOS VA e.AS
dom of the seas" was set forth or
January "a last In the Senate. when
he obtained an amendment to the Sen.
ate cruiser bill to the effect that Con.
gress favors recodification Of the rules
governing the conduct Of belligerents
and neutrals in war at sea. my ides
Of the freedom Of the seas" Mr.. Borat
declared, els the right of neutrals tx
carry goods as freely in war as ir
peace, except when they are carrying
munitions or attacking a blockade
which must not be q paper blockade"
(CopyTtght. 1880