Evening star., 1941-10-10
Freedom of Seas
An Historic Issue
Writer Discusses Obligation
To Defend Rights Of Trade
In Time of War
BIZ Bertrdnt Benedict.

the advocates of changing the Neutrality
Act are demanding. In so doing they are
following the lead Of the President him
self. AS early as May 16, he pointed out,
significantly enough, that the United
States already had fought two naval
wars, without actually declaring war, in
defense of freedom of the seas.
One was with France in 1798-l8OO.
The other was with the Barbary pirates
of the Mediterranean from 1901 to 1905
and again in 1915. In both of these un-
declared naval wars the United States
emerged victorious.
Very well, then: What is this freedom
of the seas which all the shooting is or
may be about? Sometimes it is called
the right of neutral to send its
merchant vessels without interference
anywhere on the high seas, to trade, in
peace or in war, with any nation neutral
or belligerent. But that is not quite
accurate.
First of all, belligerent state, even
while strictly observing freedom of the
seas, has every right to blockade the
ports of its enemy and to prevent all
vessels from entering them. If a vessel
tries to run that blockade it may prop
erly be intercepted or even, If it refuses
to heed a warning to halt and be
searched, may be sunk.
Only, in order for belligerent state
thus properly to bar a neutral vessel
from the ports Of its enemy, the blockade
established must fulfill two require
ments: % The blockade must be effec-
tive. For instance, if in the Spanish
American War of 1898 Spain, with its
weak navy hundreds of miles from Amer
lean shores, had proclaimed a blockade
of American ports, such mere paper
blockade obviously would have had no
legal standing at all. CD The blockade
must be maintained adjacent to the
shores of the blockaded state.
Both these requirements became issues
in the first World War and ulti-
mately had much to do with getting the
United States into the war. German sub
marines and mines kept the British
fleet at considerable distance from
German ports, but Great Britain never
theless proclaimed a blockade of Ger
many, which included all of the North
Sea, some Of it 500 miles from the
German coast.
Germany declared that such a block
ade was Illegal and in retaliation
proclaimed all the waters around the
British Isles a blockaded area. The
German blockade was maintained only
by submarines. These might sink some
ships proceeding to British ports, but
could not intercept all of them.
The United States maintained that
both blockades were improper and illegal
the British because it was extended
too far, the German because it was in
effective. The United States protested,
but took no stronger action when the
British intercepted American ships with
in the British blockade. The United
States went to war when German sub
marines sank British vessels carrying
American citizens without first making
due provision for the safety of passengers
and crew.
A second restriction, even under free
dom of the seas, upon neutral vessels
trading with a belligerent depends upon
the kind of cargo they are carrying If
that is contraband and is destined for
the enemy the vessels and the cargo
alike may be conflscated. This proper
ly may occur anywhere on the high
seas. Only the capturing warship has no
right to sink the neutral vessels at sight
even II they are carrying contraband
Formerly, absolute" contraband was
considered to be supplies of immediate
and direct use In prosecuting war-guns,
ammunition, and so forth But in these
days of all-out warfare, almost any COM
modify fairly can be claSsed as absolute
standardization Cused in explosives =,
oil (used in planes and tanks, perhaps
even foodstuffs.
An American merchant ship, the
Robin Moor, was sunk in the South At
lantic by German submarine on May
81 last. The vessel was carrying to Afri-
can ports what might fairly be called
contraband, some or most of it obviously
intended for British hands. So Germany
had the right to confscate the vessels
cargo and to take the vessel itself into
port as prize of war.
What Germany had no right to do
under the law of nations was to sink
the Robin Moor. Even less did Germany
have any right to sink the vessel while
making such inadequate provision as was
made for the safety of the crew. Sim
ilarly contrary to the law of nations was
the sinking, without warning, of an
American freighter, the Steel Seafarer
in the Red Sea on September 7 and
afterwards of vessels flying the Ameri-
can or the Panama flag of Iceland and
in the South Atlantic.
With these two restrictions, then-lia-
bility to capture If running a blockade
and il carrying contraband-freedom of
the seas does mean the right of a neutral
nation to trade with any other nation,
neutral or belligerent Thrice has the
United States failed to enforce this right.
1t was not enforced in 1907 and the
following years, when both British and
French men-of-war were preying upon
American commerce. In the hope of
crippling Great Britain and France by
denying both of them supplies of any
kind from the United States, American
vessels were not allowed to trade with
either but were kept in home ports.
More than a hundred years later, as
noted above, the United States again