Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-11
By EDWARD PRICE BELL.

|
the ninth article of this series)
By EDWARD PRICE BELL.
All creation seems to be quarrelsome;
man unquestionably is. individuals
quarrel, nations quarrel, groups Of ma
| lions line up on opposing sides and
have it out with each other. But for
mankind's proneness to brawl and maui,
historians would have been deprived of
the principal raw material Of their in
dustry.
Men have differed and fought pro-
| digiously on land, and they have per-
severed in the same kind of liveliness
at sea. However, all this strife has not
been for the mere fun of ID; issues of
| Importance, frequently Of crucial i'm
portance, have been at stake. For ex-
ample: Should Saracen or Christian
why particularly, have men contend
ed at sea?
See Conflict Of Interests.
In q word, because at sea. as on land,
men have viewed their interests as in
conflict. They have wanted to do in
compatible things. Neither proponent
nor opponent would yield, they could
not agree, and hence they came to
have lain behind maritime struggles
that of those who wished to trade. that
of those who wished to be traded with
and that of those who wished trade to
accommodate itself to a special interest
at sea.
The first Of these points Of view was
held by neutrals, the nations not at
war. The second was held by O bellig-
erent who was suffering from a block
40 tod InIl hxra hal ant
who commanded, or sought to COM
mand, the sea. The neutrals wanted
maximum neutral rights, the blockade
belligerent wanted the same rights in
so far as they would supply his needs
and the blockading belligerent wanted
his sea power to stop all commerce un-
less 1t were Of service to him-the ele-
ments, patiently, Of heap Of trouble.
OF Ancient Origin.
And these sea disputes are as old as
history dare say older. DemoSthenes
worried over them not far from 1900
years ago. At that time we find the
great Athenian, so famous for his
oratory and his patriotism, addressing
Alexander the Great, conqueror Of Asia.
in much the strain of the traditional
American argument on the sea question.
The orator and patriot, a champion OF
the freedom of the seas, charged the
grim Macedonian with violating a
treaty which read: The signatory
powers shall all have the full freedom
Of the seas; none shall modest them,
nor seize their ships, on pain OF being
regarded as the common enemy"
So ran the story of political conflict
over the sea question for unnumbered
centuries prior to the modern era. So
it has run ever since. So 1t runs to-
day. And, from beginning to end, the
contention has been due to the effort
Of each participant to promote. or de-
fend his own welfare, without much
looking out for neutrals, belligerents
for belligerents, blockaded for bloc
kaded, blockaders for blockaders-that
Is the spectacle of the wranglings and
warnings of the sea, whether we look
at them in the gray drawn Of history
or in the meridian blaze Of our own
day.
Expediency in Control.
Constancy Of principle never has
characterized these endless contro-
versies, expediency alone debating
policy. II q nation were neutral in
one war 1t strove for maximum neu-
trail rights; II it were belligerent in
another war. it strove for maximum
belligerent rights. OF this fact our
own history is perhaps as good proof
as could be cited. We fought England
in 1924 for doing very much what
we ourselves did, half century later,
In the Civil War; and in the great war
our own policy, after we entered 1t, fell
no whit short of that about which we
were on the point of forcibly challeng-
ing England few months earlier, when
We we're still neutral.
All otfapnntc IN hiring order OUt of
this maritime chaos have failed. First
there was a two-sided rule that en-
envy goods in neutral ships might be
captured and neutral goods in enemy
ship might not be captured. Eng
land practiced this rule ct came
to be known as 1.-The English rule")
up till the Crimean War, and 1t in
volved her in much turmoil. including
the war with America In 1812-14. The.
opponents of 1.-The English rule" coined
the slogan. Free ships, free goods, :"
meaning that enemy goods in neutral
ships (excepting contraband) were I'M
mune from capture; and this has been
the American doctrine though not the
American practice) since the f1rst years
Of our government.
Free Goods, Free Ships.
Continental European powers for a
long time stood with America for free
ships, free goods. excepting contra
band" It was this principle which
inspired the armed neutrality of Eu-
rope in 1880. President Pierce pro-
claimed 1t an American principle In
1854. We embodied it in our very first
treaty-our commercial agreement with
France in ireland in only the Jay
treaty with Great Britain in 1894 did
we ever accept the contrary rule.
Nevertheless, the powers of continental
Europe finally receded from their posi-
ton, and we ourselves at last came re-
luctantly to recognize the English
rule" as the prevailing law of nations.
In the Crimean War there was a
temporary lapse Of existing sea prac-
tice, Great Britain and France (who
were allies against Russia and whose
maritime principles were Numerically
opposed) agreeing for the duration of
the war to seize nothing but contra
band, whether the goods were on neutral
or on enemy ships. At the end of the
Crimean War Lord Clarendon wrote to
Palmerston from Paris (where Claren-
don was the British delegate at the
congress of Paris). stating that England