Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-15

| DL EDWARD 1nASG DGAAs
Americas chief external need un'
covers her chief external peril. What
is that need, what that peril?
| The need Is for adequate striking
power at sea-not too much, not toe
little. And adequate striking power
at sea, one may interject is to be
| gagged not by the quantity of the sea-
| borne commerce of a nation, but by
the measurement of the object at which
II might be necessary to strike.
Americas chief external peril, to my
mind. Is to be found in the chance
that she may misjudge her true sea
policy and favor principles Of sea law
lnlmical to her basic national interests.
what would such principles be? They
would be principles, think, attempting
to establish the freedom of the seas"
in time Of war.
Strange doctrine, is it?
Not SO strange.
America, as the world knows, from
the first has championed, theoretically,
the freedom of the seas" in time of
war. Is 1t not bit significant, how
ever, that she invariably has jettisoned
her theory when constrained to support
her standpoint by force of arms? The
fact Is that the freedom of the seas, "
stubbornly commended for by America in
time Of peace, has been the last thing
she would tolerate when herself at war.
Dependent Upon Naval Power.
Really, prima facie, from our point
of view, Is there not something wrong
with war theory which we can adj
here to only when we are at peace? l
certainly believe that there is, and I
will try to put my finger on the source
of the error. Our ultimate support is
the sea. Therefore, think say, do what
we will, we are finally dependent upon
naval power. And naval power, in a
war-like emergency, has no business
entangling itself in any theory or law
designed to effect the freedom Of the
seas" If it does, at the first roar Of
the cannon 1t will wrest itself free, just
as we have done in all our wars, and
just as the allies were compelled to do
in order to break the Prussian onset
against the freedom Of the world.
mot so strange" ! just said of this
doctrine. It seems the correct doctrine
for America to no less an authority than
Rear Admiral Mahan, of whom RooSe-
welt observed: There is no question you
stand head and shoulders above the
rest of u.s." And of whom Charles
Carlisle Taylor, his biographer, declares:
LAS an exponent of sea power he has
the judgment not of an American, but
of a Britisher.
Admiral Mahan saw the sea interests
of Britain and America as Identical, and
so, in strict objectivity, they are. The
further dictum Is true that the sea in
terests Of all naval nations are identical,
If the nations only knew 1t. Any ag-
gression from the land toward the sea
threatens every seagoing people. Naval
InRA k@s,lx. nrIr@ Sv1ek
aggression, not restraints of traffic at
sea, for so long as there is no agrees
siol. there is peace, and peace, as we
have seen, means the freedom Of the
seas outside territorial waters.
An Understanding Needed.
True, naval station NIGH become
an aggresSor. But will it? Can you see
Britain or America or Japan or France
or Italy running her head into the stone
wall lit Is much more like stone wall
than superficial critics perceive) Of
existing international law and senti-
ment against aggression? l. cannot. I
am satisfied that these nations are with
out exception whole heartedly for peace;
and, II they are, all they need to do is
reach an understanding among them
selves and let it be known that the
worlds effective naval power stands
solidly for an end of the moral crime
and the material calamity of war;.
OF the pacific nature of every great
land force in the world we cannot be
so sure. Conditions on land are not
nearly so well defined and settled as
they are at sea. Take Russia as an illus
tration. Who knows a great deal about
her? Who would venture to foretell the
final outward manifestations of that
unexampled political and social mys-
terry? Does even Russia herself under
stand Russia? It is most improbable.
So we must wait and see. And think for
q moment OF that greatest of Central
European powers, Germany. Is q clear
national image yet discernible there?
Do we know that aggression is buried
beyond resurrection east Of the Rhine?
We hope 1t is. It probably is. But we
do not know. And meanwhile, in my
opinion, there should be no legal whit
Ting down of the defensive rights Of
the peaceful peoples of the seas.
Approves Britain's Policy.
Holly as We have quarreled with
Britain over the maritime ways, Ad-
miral Mahan regarded them as the only
sensible ways, the only possible ways,
for such a power. And he saw our well
fare as contingent upon the same pol
icy. He recognized that Britain and
America are ineluctably nations Of the
sea, traders Of the world, and that
high belligerent rights of their navies
so long rs war shall be thought Of
as possible-are an indispensable part
of their defensive armor.
Why was there ever a cleavage In
the sea policies of the English-speaking
peoples? Simply because of the politi-
cal stupidity of the central British au-
thorities in the eighteenth century.
That stupidity turned the loyalty of the
American colonists into gall and worm
wood. and they revolted. Political
cleavage resulting. naval cleavage fol-
lowed inevitably in its turn. But for
rights never would have arisen between
Great Britain and ourselves any more
than it arises now between Great
Britain and Canada, Australia, New