Evening star., 1939-12-17

rendered to Washington's Continental
Army at Yorktown, Benjamin Franklin,
the greatest Of American diplomats,
negotiated a treaty with Prussia, which
gave the world a revolutionary prin-
ciple OF international law.
1t is principle which has been re-
peatedly subjected to attack by the
exigencies of war, and the latest assault
on it-by the British-has moved Sec
retary of State Hull to send formal
note Of disapproval to the British gov
ernment. In 1906 President Jefferson
protested against the same sort of action,
and in 1915 and 1916 President Wilson
repeated the protest. The British have
not replied to Secretary Hull But it
is safe bet that their answer in 1899
or 1910 will be similar to their answers
of 1906 and 1915.
The principle formed of Franklin's di-
plomacy and so often ignored by the Brit
ish was that private property at sea, un-
less it Is contraband, is exempt from
capture. Almost 100 years later, in 1871,
the United States reached treaty with
Italy in which the principle again was
set forth. But the British have never
acceded to it. For this and a number
Of other reasons-chief among them
the necessities of war-they have issued
an Order in Council declaring, as they
declared in 1915, that ships, neutral or
not, carrying goods from the enemy ter
rltory are subject to seizure with their
goods.
The controversy is interesting because
1t Is recurrent. It antedates even Frank
lin, even the establishment of the United
States. The 13 British Colonies along
Americas Atlantic seaboard were at odds
with the mother country in 1756 be-
cause, in her war with France, England
limited neutral trade between her pos
sessions and the enemy. Once the con-
troversy was a factor in driving us to
war with England, in 1872 At its best
1t is sore diplomatic subject, productive
of indignation, fruitful and misunder-
standing.
U. S. Ships Subjected to Capture.
Mr.. Hull was provoked by an Order
in Council dated November %. It an
nounced to the world that the British
Navy would intercept all ships and all
goods emanating from German territory
as well as all ships sailing after Deem
Der from any port, neutral or not, that
carry goods of German origin or German
ownership. The fact that the American
neutrality laws keep American ships out
OF the combat zones through which goods
from Germany would be most likely to
pass does not lessen it's effect upon the
United States. American concerns can
still purchase German goods to be trans
ported here in foreign bottoms. And it
could subject American ships to cap
ture by the British if they carried Ger
man goods from, say, Italy. which is
out Of the war zone. AS Secretary Hull
pointed out in his note:
This order if applied literally would
subject American vessels to diversion to
British ports if they are found to be
carrying goods of German origin or Ger
man ownership. regardless of the place
Of lading such goods or the place of
destination and regardless of the own
ership of the goods at the time that the
vessel is intercepted.
The British idea of course, is that traf-
flc bv any nation, neutral or not, with
Britain's enemy weakens the British
prospects of victory or at least postpones
the arrival of victory. The American
idea is that neutrals have rights and
that belligerents must respect them at
no matter what cost. 1t is obvious that
the resolution Of this controversy is i'm
possible. The situation of the British
belligerent, with its great sea might, and
Of the American neutral is incompatible.
The World War diplomatic controversy
over this same matter was opened with
an Order in Council issued March II, 1915.
Secretary of State Bryan and his sue
cessor, Mr.. Lansing, insisted in a series
Of notes that the action was illegal. The
British avoided the issue directly in their
replies, but refused to relinquish their
claimed privilege of denying commerce
in goods suspected of being of German
origin-whether they came from Ger
many or from Germany's neutral neigh
bors.
Justification Set Up in 1916.
The London Times History of the
War;" Volume VII, published in 1916,
when belhgerent could scarcely afford
to indulge in frank discussion of it's
motives, insists that the March II Order
in Council was in keeping with interna-
tional practices and sets up moral JUS
tiflcation.
Great Britain was compelled by her
duty to the whole cause of international
life to leave no legal measures untried
that would reduce the enemy" the Times
historian wrote. The United States as q
neutral naturally, would not-ofhcially,
anyway-admit that Britain's cause was
the salvation of international life.
The course of the controversy in 1915
and 1916 is interesting from the legalistic
view because it found Great Britain ad-
vocating theory of blockade never ad-
mitted in peacetime and not insisted on
since the Napoleanic Wars-that a bel
ligerent could blockade neutral shores.
The March II Order in Council pro-
claimed, among other things, that ships
from non-German ports carrying goods
Of enemy origin or enemy property would
be subject to capture by French and
British ships and to being forced to dis
charge their cargoes in French or Brit