Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-10
Freedom of the Seas,

two ago an English voice was heard in
discussion of an issue which, though
old, is ever new. Lieut.. Comdr. j. M.
Kenworthy, formerly an oficer in the
British Navy and now a Labor member
of the House of Commons. dealt with
what he termed "the ancient American
doctrine of the freedom of the seas"
Comdr. Kenworthy went straight to the
kernel of that vital maritime question
when he declared that until Great
Britain and the United States thresh
it out and settle it, no genuine reduc-
ton of their respective navies can or
ever will be undertaken.
From the American standpoint. Comdr.
Kenworthy is Individually right. Our
whole naval policy rests upon the de-
termination to remain sufficiently strong
to enforce complete freedom of move
! ment for our citizens, our goods and
our ships on the high seas at any and
all times except those which find the
United States itself a belligerent and
even then, II we are powerful enough
to command" the seas.
The young republic of 119 years ago
went to war with Britain for the second
time within half q century to vindicate
the doctrine of American neutral rights
at sea. The great naval program Of
1915, keystone Of the present proud
American feet, was enacted by Con-
gress mainly under the influence of
British interference with our sea-borne
commerce during the early months of
the World War. A year later Uncle
Sam himself entered the lists against
Germany because we were goaded into
belligerency by the Kaiser's ruthless
disregard of Americas neutral priv
ileges on the oceans.
Comdr. Kenworthy advises the Brit
ish government to accept the Amer
lean principle of the inviolability Of
neutral commerce which does not Of
fend against internationally accepted
theories Of contraband and blockade.
He properly points out that no country
stands to profit, in case Of her own
neutrality, more than Britain, hinged"
by Kipling's 'leaden seas" under an
agreement whereby she could bring in
her own food and carry on her overseas
trade unmolestedly.
On Armistice day, 1929, President
Hoover offered informally for the
worlds consideration" scheme for CIV
ing freedom Of the seas in wartime at
least to ships loaded with food for non
conbatants It has never been disclosed
what response, If any, the Presidents
humanitarian gesture evoked. The pro-
posal contained basic drawbacks. Now
adays q country wages war behind the
front as well as in the battle zone
facing the foe. Literally nation is in
arms when 1t goes to modern war. 1t
might be dificult to establish a line of
demarcation between non -combatants
at home making shells or weaving cloth
for uniforms and combatants in the
field. Food for the home front might
be considered as a very substantial
factor in sustaining resistance in the
fighting line.
So jealous devoteeS of peace as Vis-
count Cecil in Great Britain and Sena-
tor Borsh in the United States have
repeatedly and vigorously urged that
the principal two naval powers come to
grips with the freedom Of the sea issue.
They agree that it is fundamental.
They concur in Comdr. Kenworthy's
view that it is a condition precedent to
| any naval reduction worthy Of the
name
The subject is revived at a timely
moment. At London q year ago the
American delegation to the Naval Con-
ference demanded and obtained parity
with the British feet. Why? For the
simple reason that the United States
intends to remain powerful enough to
impose freedom Of the sea, in case Of
emergency, against the feet hitherto
the strongest afioat. What travesty--
what q tragedy-that the Ten-Billion-
Dollar Congress has adjourned without
taking q single step to give effect to
the treaty Navy for which we so
valiantly contended at London in 1890!
Let the American people be uncon-
| fused as TO the real issue: 1t is United
States Navy equal, ton for ton, gun for
gun, with Britannia, or our supine
acauiescence in her remaining ruler Of
/ the waves