Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-14
BY EDWARD PRICE BELL.

| BY EDWARD PRICE BELL.
1t has been the fundamental hypo-
thesis of this series of articles that the
approaching f1ve-power naval confer
ence in London would be, in reality, q
good deal more than an affair of com.
| bat relatively at sea, with such nava
reduction and limitation as might prove
/ to be possible consistently with thai
principle. The hypothesis has beer
| that the discussions of the conference
and consequently its educative effect
would range, either formally or In
formally, over the whole realm of the
| strategic relations of peoples on both
sea and land.
War and peace, in short, have been
assumed to project the inevitable SUBJ
! ject matter of the conference.
Combat relatively at sea, with les
sened and limited economic burdens foI
| the construction and maintenance OF
naval defenSeS, is known by every one
to be the stipulated problem of the con-
ference. It holds, and doubtless rightly
holds, first place. 1t is the only an
nounced business OF the conference.
But the delegates going to London are
unusually intelligent men, representing
governments exceptionally wide awake,
and they hardly can fail to ask them.
selves certainly public opinion Will
ask not only how many war vessels
each nation may have but what duties
| presumably, these craft may be calleo
| upon to perform. rs.
Having discussed the situation with 9
number of responsible persons, civil ano
military, in Great Britain and in Amer
lea. I have not found one OF them wno
! is not turning over in his mind ABOUT
| 1aT 0eaT~
| ing upon what is, after all, the tran
| scendent matter of the day in all coun-
! tries-peace.
navies to do for peace?
Talk About Neutral Rights.
We in this country still are talking
about neutral rights at sea. senator
Borah. for instance, seems to. DO more
thinking relative to these rights, or So
called rights, than to anytnmg ese
connected with the subject. Tne nrass
tacks" of the world naval poslIlon ap-
pear to be quite beyond the Sena.ol
digestive and assimilative capaclCles
He will not look at them, much less
take them into his apprehensive ano
ratiocinatiye system. He sticks 10 Ms
fayorite food Of minimum oeiilgeren!
rights and maximum neutral rlgnts al
Acute and progressive minds, how
ever. are seeing maritime rlgnts IN
new light In this new ngnI uio =,
| rights will be seen in London. no" az
| they look there? ,.,e.
of a belligerent, whether military o.
naval. exercising more moderate pei.
| iigerent rights than either prudence o.
necessity forced upon him. The per
| liperent. whether soldier or Sallor
| sinnly fights. and always Will ngnt a.
hard as he can to win. That, Wnen al
| is said and done, is what ne is tneIt
for. Try forcibly to restrain him. par
! ticularly If he deems his struggle vital
and what do you get? NOT peace ou
war.
Natural Rights Are Violated.
Take the military and naval RECORD
| of orr own country Suppose Britain
had gone too far in her effort 10 ge'
over Lincoln's blockade OF the Soutn'
ern States in the Civil War. is there
any doubt what that wouio nave meaaie
| Is there any doubt 1t would have mean
a second Anglo-American war? Ye
britain was striving merely to asser
what she considered her neutral rights
at sea. W.,
in which, by the way, Britain stooe
firmly with us. Suppose the statesmen
of Downing street had been disposes
otherwise, Suppose they had teit Una Ina
would be harmful to Britain and hat
attempted to aid the Spanish through
our naval lines. Should we then hav'
cried out for minimum belligeren
rights and maximum neutral rights a
sea?" Does even Senator Borah thlnl
we should? And call to mind tn
Great War. What did we do in it bu
drive our battleships and cruisers ant
destroyers and mine layers and U-Doa
chasers through the very middle Of tn
fabric of neutral rights at sea?
And one more question: What shoul'
we do II we were at war with neigh
Dor in this hemisphere Ca condition
which probably forever will remain con
trary to fact) and some European o
other champion of minimum belliger
ent rights and maximum neutral right
at sea" def1ed our ideas OF what It wa
necessary for us to do by way OF block
AIDE? / imagine we all know what w
should do We should cry halt, and !
the offender did not halt we shoul'
shoot.
And there would be, again, not peace
but war.
Survival Is Always First.
Mark this: You must not put ma
ton In such shape that 1t Is compelled
to choose between observing principl
and either losing its life or seeing de
velop a situation which seems to it de
structive of its inalienable rights. /
you do this, the principle will not be re
Spected; the nation will choose to keel
its life or to prevent the situation reck
! oned by 1t to be worse than war. Their
. is just one way to get rid of belligeren
pretensions on land or seaA~wipe bel