Evening star., 1939-10-25

oldllCC.
Perhaps the reason for the un-
usual amount of publicity given the
Flint affair is that seizures of this
kind are novel to the generations
born since the World War, but here
In Washington the episode served an
odd purpose Administration sup
porters said it wouldn't have hap
pened if the proposed neutrality law
revision had been passed, whereas.
supporters of the embargo tended
to minimize the Importance of the
incident.
Actually, the proposed neutrality
law may cut down the possible num-
Der of incidents, but they can by no
means be eliminated. For it is a
custom of war for the navy of one
belligerent or the other to intercept
vessels bound from one neutral port
to another neutral port. The pro-
posed law merely forbids American
ships from entering belligerent ports.
The suggested amendment of
Senator Taft of Ohio, which was
defeated and which would prohibit
American ships from approaching
the shores Of neutral countries near
the belligerent areas, might logically
have had the effect of still further
avoidance of incidents like the seiz-
ure of the Flint. But the premise
on which these proposed restrictions
is based is hardly tenable. For
Americas ships were seized and car
goes diverted hundreds of times in
the World War without much more
than drastically worded protest
sent to the offending government.
Deaths Decided Issue.
1t cannot be assumed that America
would get into war with any Euro
pean power because of the seizure of
ships or cargoes. What provoked the
last war with Germany was not the
destruction of American property
but the sinking of American vessels
without warning and the consequent
loss of American lives.
The reason why a distinction is
drawn between seizure of ships and
destruction of American lives is that
property can be restored or replaced
Ii the City of Flint was illegally
seized under international law, the
German government will some day
pay damages. But it is not a oasis
for war or strained relations any
more than is the inspection Of car
goes going on now by the British,
who regularly confiscate alleged
contraband.
When the proposed neutrality bill
Is passed, American ships will not
be travelling directly to any bellig.
erent ports in Europe, but to neutral
areas and to British and French
colonies in the South Atlantic anc
the Pacific. German raiders will
be few and far between.
Attitude Against Involvement.
The difficulty, on the other hand
OF establishing responsibility for the
occasional act of a German raider
and the tendency of the American
public to regard all travel and ship.
ping as engaged in at the risk o1
travellers and ship owners will tenc
to make remote any complications
comparable to that which led thu
United States into war in 1917.
During war neutral countries
have for centuries expected to have
their trade intercepted, and the
arguments about indemnities and
responsibility have been numerous
but the basic principle is that bellig.
erents have right to seize any
ship, or cargo, or both, which Is
carrying materials or supplies OF
possible use to the enemy. Contra
band lists proclaimed by belligerents
are never accepted in entirety by
neutrals.
The fact that the City of Flint
was taken to a Russian port, pre-
sumably neutral, introduces a legal
complication which may cause the
Russians to release the vessel rather
than appear before the world In the
legal status of a belligerent. But
outside Of these technical considera-
tions. the public may well accustom
itself to the fact that American
shipping headed for Europe is bound
to be intercepted to a greater OF
lesser extent, dependent upon the
effectiveness Of the blockade estab-
nshed respectively by either the
German or the allied navies.