Evening star., 1939-09-10
Doctrine of Safe Seas Again
Becomes Vital Problem in War
Traditional Attitude Toward Seizures and Warnings
Brought Sharply in Focus
Early in Conflict
By Joseph II. Baird.

II, oeSplue Clle administrator e1OTJS
to preserve neutrality, America should
become involved in the present European
war, history has established better than
even odds that 1t will be because of this
country's traditional insistence on safe
use of the seas in times of foreign con-
flict.
Two of our wars-that Of 1912 and
the World War-were fought over this
basic issue, and it was contributory
reason for the Revolutionary War.
America, since the days of the fleet Yam
kee Clippers, has insisted upon its right
to send its commerce over the seven
seas. It has insisted with equal firm
ness that it's citizens, even when on for
eign ships, should not be murdered in
violation of the laws of war.
Hence there was an almost theatrical
significance for Americans in the fact
that the first major sea tragedy in the
present conflict should have been the
sinking of the British steamer Athena,
with more than 300 United States citi-
zens aboard. Occurring within few
hundred miles of the scene of the Lusi-
causes of this country's entrance into
the World War-it emphasized that the
United States is not remote from the
present conflict that isolation is only
an ideal, not a reality. Regardless of
the diplomatic outcome of the Athena
case, it has centered attention as moth
ing else could upon the laws of war at
sea and upon Americas rights and duties
as neutral power.
Rights In U. S. Waters Stated.
President Roosevelt has promptly pro-
claimed these rights and duties so far
as they affect America and its territorial
waters. Even now the Navy and Coast
Guard are establishing special patrols
along the Atlantic Coast to see that
foreign ships do not seize prizes in
United States territorial waters, that
belligerent warships remain no longer
than "a hours in American ports and
that the shores of this country are not
used as bases of operation by warning
fleets.
The main danger to American peace,
however, lies not so much in violation
of these rules as with interference with
United States vessels upon the high
seas And the only protection in this
realm, aside from the armed might Of
the Navy, lies in that great, unwieldly
bulk of dogma and doctrine, often hazy
and contradictory, save as specific points
have been clarified by treaty, known as
international law.
International law at sea goes back to
the hazy days of the Greeks and
Phoenicians. Its earliest known codifi-
cation, however. is found in the Liber
Memorandum 14th century docu-
ment now preserved in the London
Guild Hall. This defined the rights Of
vessels and mariners in peace as well
as war. Ancient maritime law, though,
has been so modified in recent centuries
and so variously interpreted by different
nations that it has little bearing on
present problems.
Goods of Enemy Once Seized.
For some time before America be-
orally accepted law Of the sea seems
to have been tn. the goods Of an
enemy could be conhscated, even though
they were in neutral ship. This was
recognized in memorandum sent by
Thomas Jefferson to Citizen Genet, Min
lister of France in this country during
the Napoleonic Wars. Genet, who had
been protesting because the British took
goods consigned to France from Amer
ican ships, was told by Jefferson in
memorandum:
I'VE suppose 1t to have been long
established principle of the law of ma
tions that the goods of friend are
free in an enemy vessel and an enemy's
lawful prize in the vessel of friend.
The inconvenience of this principle
s'' has induced several nations lat
terly to stipulate against 1t by treaty,
and to substitute another in its stead,
that free bottoms shall make free goods
80 AS far as it has been introduced,
1t depends upon the treaties stipulating
1t, and forms exceptions in special cases
to the general operation of the law OF
nations.
I'VE have introduced it in our treaties
with France, Holland and Prussia; the
French goods found by the latter nations
in American bottoms are not made
prize Of. 1t is our wish to establish 1t
with other nations But this requires
their consent also, as work of time;
and in the meantime they have right
to act on the general principle, without
giving to us, or to France, cause OF
complaint"
Self-Interests Decided Policy.
As in all matters of international law
and diplomacy, national self-interest
has determined the outlook of nations
on the doctrine that free ships make
free goods. Great Britain, being the
worlds greatest sea power. usually has
opposed the doctrine because 1t had the
naval strength to protect its own COM
merce while raiding that OF an enemy.
Even Britain, during long periods OF
peace, when its commercial interests
were more powerful politically than the
Sea Lords, has veered toward support