Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-05-31
Sea Freedom
Still Styled
Clear as Mud
Presidents Chat Leaves
Confusion, Says johnson
BY HUGH S. JOHNSON

international policy, at one and
the same time, the principles of
the neutrality acts and our an
Gent doctrine of freedom of the
seas.
Perhaps. as the President has
suggested, il is not theoretically
so absurd as ii sounds. Whether
that is so or not, the mixture
leaves confusion worse con-
founded as to what is TO be eX-
pected of our people and what
they are TO expect in our course
toward further involvement in
war.
Freedom of the Seas" was al
ways an indefinite and uncertain
concept. Roughly. briefly and
very sketchily, il meant that. on
the high seas. any ship of any
neutral nation had freedom 10
90 and come without molestation
even TO belligerent ports-with
two very important exceptions.
II she was carrying contra
band of war 10 a belligerent.
she was subject to seizure by lis
enemy on the high seas. 10 be-
ing taken by that enemy 10 one
of its own prize courts and there
condemned and sold.
A second exception was that.
If neutral ship attempted 10
crash through an actual and
effective" naval blockade. main
tanned off the coast of one bel
ligerent by another. she could be
sunk by the blockading fleet and
this would not be regarded as
cause for war BY the neutral
ships government
4 QUALIFICATION 10 the
"A right of seizure on the high
seas by a belligerent was that
any such capture had 10 be pre-
coded by a searching of the neu-
trail ship 10 see if she did carry
contraband destined TO a bellig-
She couldn't without
creating a cause for war, simply
be sunk on sight. If search dis
closed that she clearly carried
no contraband. she had a right
to proceed.
The neutrality acts did not
amend this ancient international
law. They were addressed only
TO American shippers, merchant
men, merchants and bankers.
They merely forbade American
property TO be ventured into
combat areas "-Zones of the
oceans proclaimed by the PreSi-
dent TO be dangerous.
In favor of other nations. they
gave away no rights of the
United States on the high seas
They were intended 10 prevent
incidents" under international
law which might draw this
country into war to protect the
property and dollars of its more
VentureSome citizens.
IN THIS regard, the President
Il is certainly technically correct
in saying that the doctrine of
Freedom OF the Seas and the
neutrality acts can consistently
exist together.
American shipping and prop
erty is still under the protection
of the American flag, certainly
anywhere outside the proclaimed
combat zones and probably even
there. If our government wishes
10 prosecute violations by its
own citizens of its own laws, but
nevertheless hold belligerents to
our governments rights under
international law.
No, the neutrality acts did not
amend the ancient doctrine of
Freedom Of the Seas" as inter-
national law. But some other
developments did. Two were the
submarine and wireless. If a
submarine is to be used at all TO
police neutral commerce. it cam
not barely risk the delay of a
search.
1t cannot easily convoy
seized ship 10 its own ports. on
the surface il is very vulnerable
TO gunfire from an armed mer-
chant ship Due TO the wireless,
il can't loiter around its prize
Radio can instantly summon
patrolling destroyers and cruis-
crs of its enemy.
THE other development crimp-
ing the old doctrine is the
nation in arms" or total war"
In earlier times "contraband of
war" while not subject TO any
precise and agreed definition,
generally included only direct
munitions of war or supplies
peculiar TO and destined TO
armed forces. Now, since nations
go TO war with everything they
have of the -four M's"-''men,
materials, money and morale
everything is contraband Of war
if destined directly or indirectly
TO a belligerent.
Thus. in practice, there is little
left Of Freedom of the Seas" as
international law. England will
continue to regulate our out
bound commerce. The NaziS will
continue TO maintain that theirs
is an active and effective"