The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

ne Freedom of the Seas (Photapragns; Courtesy on Whe ‘3B sh M inistry of Information.) The Backbone of the Blockade Against Germany—Britain’s Grand eet at Sea LONG the limitless, lonely reaches of the North Atlantic nature herself is so utterly untrammeled and the world of wind and tide sa completely master of its own devices, that amid such surround- ings any thought of restricting the freedom of the seas seems not only absurd, but futile. But the world small and quickly memory flashes forth another scene—the battlefield of the Somme, seemingly’ as limitless and lonely as the northern ocean, a great rolling plain of desolation and ruin wrought through over four years of agony that the world might once more live in peace and security. With this picture comes the thought that the question of the freedom of the seas is not a thing of itself alone, or a controversy to be settled on musty legal precedents or precon- ceived ideas. Rather it is a great problem which must be dealt with in a statesmanlike manner, in the light of what has been wrought on the battlefields of France and Belgium, and with a full recognition of the tremendous changes that have issued from the war. HE task of defining what “the freedom of the seas” shall mean hereafter is one of the most important confronting the peace congress now assembling in Paris. More than this, it is the one great point at issue re- maining unsettled between the govern- ments of Great Britain and _ the United States. In fact it is not too much to say that in this many thorned problem lies the chief possibility of failure to achieve that complete unity between the English speaking peoples of the world which almost everyone thinks is necessary for the future security and welfare of civilization. The interest of the great and rapidly growing shipping and_ shipbuilding industries of the United States ‘in The Issue Joined For 130 years the United States has contended for the immunity of private property from capture at sea mm time of war, yielding only to the single exception of contraband. In addition, America has always stood firmly for the exercise of the right of search at sea in accordance with the traditions of international law.. This is the foundation of our sea policy, underlying what we mean. by “the freedom of the seas.” Great Britain contends equally vigorously that in modern war battle lines are as definite and con- tinuous on sea'as on land, and that an island power is at an mtolerable disadvantage unless it can com- pletely stop its enemy's traffic over- seas. Furthermore, Britain claims that inshore blockade is no longer possible; instead whole sea areas must be closed. Likewise it 1s pointed out that search at sea is impracticable and dangerous with big modern cargoes. Therefore, England says, suspected vessels must be taken into port for exam- ination. On these differing points of view, the issue is joined. It 1s these great fundamental questions which must be settled on a just basis at the peace congress. this much discussed problem is of course fundamental. It is particularly important that these industries under- 57 stand clearly the British point of -view, which has tot been carefully explained in the United States, and also British reactions to American contentions regarding the freedom of the seas. It is for. the purpose of presenting this phase of the subject, in order to explain if possible “the other fellow’s point of view,” that this article has been written after an eight weeks’ personal study on the ground in Great Britain. HE phrase “freedom of the seas” is an unfortunate one, since it has been used extensively by German propagandists as a camouflage for their desire to crush or curtail British sea power. “The freedom of the seas,” from the boche point of view, has - meant simply the entire elimination of the blockade, either directly or by permitting a free flow of contraband goods through neutral countries. This contention of course may be dismissed without special comment. Interna- tional law has always recognized the right of blockade, and the conditions of modern war and_ transpo-tation have enlarged the blockaded areas. As briefly and clearly as possible let us now contrast the differing points of view of the American and the Britisher toward this grave problem. For 130 years the American conten-. tion has been singularly consistent. The form which the freedom of the seas idea has always taken in Amner- ican advocacy is that of insisting upon the immunity of private prope:i. at sea from capture, it being understood that the property in question is not contraband and that it is in a neutral ship. In its boiled down essence, this is all that lies under the mountains of talk which have been heaped on the freedom of the seas question in ‘