Evening star., 1939-11-16

neutrality law, paVio Lawrence
have agreed not to permit Ameri-
can ships hereafter to transfer their
registry to the Panama flag, even
though it is permitted by inter-
national law as well as domestic
law.
At first the President was inclined
to follow the law and not the in
cipient waves of criticism and
stand on the historic position which
the Government has always fol-
lowed in the past, but again the
cry has been raised that to pro-
tect Americas own lawful interests
might drag us into the war"
Instead of vigorously refuting that
proposition by pointing out that
America undertakes no responsible
ties whatsoever when an American
owned vessel flies neutral foreign
flag, the Department of State, which
knows the precedents even better
than the President, insisted that
the transfers would be misunder-
stood. Such policy merely means
that right after right will be sur
rendered whenever hue and cry
is heard that some particular action
might involve diplomatic discus
sions with foreign governments.
Awkward Precedents Seen.
The material losses involved by
policy of the administration may
or may not be large today, but the
lylD of foit y, iy,
ternational law and rights on the
high seas will constitute an i'm
portant precedent for the future and
will embarrass other governments
which attempt to stand by neutral
rights in the world The theory
is gradually being built up that
belligerent government can do as
it pleases and even cause domestic
policy to be substantially modified
for fear of offending the belligerent.
Some idea of the distance to
which the American Government
now has retreated may be derived
from a reading of host of pre-
cedents. Not only have American
citizens had the right to do as they
please with their own ships so far
as transferring to other flags is
concerned, but they even have had
the right to buy or lease or charter
ships from belligerents and carry on
trade.
1.-THE right of Americans to buy
foreign-built vessels and to carry
on commerce with them is clear and
undoubted" wrote Secretary of
State Evarts as far back as 1879.
Even further back, when Henry
Clay was Secretary of State in 1927,
the United States Government
said:
eff vessels have been built in
the United States and afterward
sold to one of the belligerents and
converted into vessels of war, our
citizens engaged in that species of
manufacture have been equally
ready to build and sell vessels to
other belligerents.
Compensation Not Unreasonable.
During the state of war between
two nations the commercial in
dustry and pursuits of neutral ma
ton are often materially injured.
If the neutral finds some compen-
sation in new species of industry
which the necessities of the bel
ligerents stimulate or bring into
activity, it cannot be deemed very
unreasonable that he should avail
himself of that compensation, pro-
vided he confines himself within
the line of entire impartiality and
violates no rule of public law.
bodybuilding is great branch
of American manufactures, in which
the citizens of the United States
may lawfully employ their capital
and industry. When built, they may
seek market for the article in
foreign ports as we'll as their own.
ITO require the citizens of
neutral power to abstain from the
exercise of their incontestable right
to dispose of the property, which
they may have in an unarmed ship
to belligerent, would in effect be
to demand that they should cease
to have any commerce or to employ
any navigation in their intercourse
with belligerent.
'It can hardly be expected that
the neutral should submit to
universal cessation of his trade be-
cause by possibility some of the
subjects of it may be acquired in
a regular course of business by a
belligerent and may aid him in
his efforts against an enemy"
In other words, Americans could
until this week not only transfer
their ships legally to belligerent
flag and ownership, but it also has
been consistently held that lawful
transfers of ships may even be made
to neutral by belligerent. In
the present instance, the American
Government is in effect going so
far as to say that an American ship
cannot be transferred to the flag
OF another neutral power, and its
only reason for prohibiting it is
that the spirit" of neutrality calls
Tor such action. But on this basis
all commerce with belligerents could
be stopped, and this was precisely
the argument of the minority in
Congress for the retention of the
embargo on arms last month.
May Plague Shipping.
To force American citizens by
statute to stop using their own ships
was unprecedented in itself, but to
object now when they seek to save
their properties from bankruptcy by
putting them under the protection
Of another neutral government is
to build up precedents that will
plague American shipping interests
for decades to come. If there really
were remote chance that transfer
of registry might actually involve
America in war. the action might
be defended as plausible, but almost
everyone who has followed mari
time controversies in the past knows