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

60 she persuaded 25 countries to vote with her. Almost the moment the war opened the fallacy of this position became evident and today we have lists of contraband that include almost every known commodity. RITERS on the development of English sea policy and public men in Great Britain frequently point out that in their adaptation of the international law of the sea to modern conditions they have been guided in many instances by precedents set up by the United States itself in the Civil war, 1861-65, when some of our theories as to the inviolability of private property were badly bent. In considcring questions of contra- band and blockade, Englishmen de- clare that a modern state cannot be guided entirely by old treaties and the opinions of text writers who had only the experience of the Napoleonic wars to guide them. Principles guiding action, they claim, must take existing, changed conditions into account, but without ever losing sight of the dic- tates of humanity as the Germans did. Naval experts also point out that under modern conditions of naviga- tion and steamship development the old fashioned inshore blockade is no longer practicable. Furthermore, in- ternational law insists on a blockade being a real one, not countenancing simply paper decrees, and in order to fulfill this condition, a blockade today must control whole sea areas and supervise ali the traffic in those areas. Furthermore it is utterly impossible to effectively examine for contraband the cargo of say an 8000-ton ship while. at astrous delays and possibly injury or loss of life A modefn cargo does not consist of a few bales and boxes that can be readily looked over. On the contrary it is a mountain of freight, securely boxed and bound in great packages weighing tons. In ad- dition, it is very easy at present to conceal contraband of the most valu- able character to the enemy under innocent appearing cover. One has only to recall the shipments of rubber and copper in bales of cotton’ sent from our own shores to Germany, via Holland and Denmark, in 1915. Therefore, for considerations of effi- ciency, safety and convenience to al! concerned, including neutral owners, modern naval authorities insist on bringing suspected vessels into port for examination and search. It must be understood that in all such cases, damages are paid in full where inno- cent conditions are discovered. And the freedom of the seas contention, the British believe, should not be used to ease the path of the guilty. A great political doctrine known as sea without causing dis-> THE MARINE REVIEW “the protection of key industries” is now being developed in Great Britain as a result of her experiences with unpreparedness in 1914. In it is included the protection of England’s vital shipping industries. Britain feels they must be ready for any emergency. A summary of British opinion and viewpoint on the freedom of the seas question has been given by the Lon- don Times as follows: “Readiness to continue as heretofore the freedom of the seas in times of peace, which has been carried out by England—for example as to the admission of for- eign vessels to the coasting trade— more than by any other important commercial country, and to agree to the conversion into a mare liberum of any sea now treated as a mare clausum; a strong conviction, greatly hardened by the lessons of the war, to maintain the minimum safety of the British people and the empire, and to be no party to any agreement con- flicting or tampering therewith. <A belief that conditions of warfare are so changing that Britain must be ready to protect herself against perils ahead. Readiness to consider any changes put forward by neutrals, con- sistent with these essentials. Desire to co-operate in rendering impossible the hideous crimes committed at sea during the recent war. Readiness so far as is compatible with safety in the fill sense, to promote any prac- ticable scheme for a league of na- tions. In short, a firm resolution as to essentials and an open mind as to secondary matters.” N effort now having been made to present clearly the essential fea- tures of British conceptions of the freedom of the seas, it may be in order to contrast with them the American policy, and to point out the British reactions to this policy. Is there, we may: ask at the outset, a distinct, consistent American point of view as regards the freedom of. the seas? A few years ago. this question might have been answered without difficulty. The fundamental principles of American sea policy were laid down by Benjamin Franklin and in the treaty with Prussia in 1785. These principles rested on Franklin’s conception that “three classes. of persons should be totally exempt from the operations of war—farmers, fishermen and merchants.” From this grew up the American doctrine of the inviolability of private property at sea, which can only be assured by ° making it free from capture in. time of war, provided, as previously stated, it is not contraband. It was for the vindication of this principle, extended to apply to the persons of American February, 191 seamen, that we fought the war o 1812 with England, and likewise the war against the Mediterranean pirates This doctrine was urged on _ th world by President Monroe in 1823 by President Pierce in 1854, and b President Buchanan in 1858. In 1856 the United States made it a con tion of its adherence to the Declara tion of Paris. Provisions stipulatin such immunity have been inserted in many treaties to which the United States is a party. At the Hague con- ference in 1899, Mr. White, the Amer- ican representative, pressed this doctrine strongly, and it was also eloquently defended by Mr. Choate in 1907. It is older than the Monroe doctrine, and possibly was in Presi- dent Wilson’s mind when he wrote the famous second article in his Four- teen Points of Peace. HE President, it will be remem- bered, “wrote as follows: ‘The program ot the world’s peace * © * is this: * * * Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters,-alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by inter- national action for the enforcement of international covenants.” It is this statement that is causing the British people the greatest. anxiety at the present time. They find some com- fort, however, in reading it along with the fourth article, in which the Presi- dent says that peace also depends on, “Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armanients will be re- duced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.” This minimut of domestic safety, to the average Britisher familiar with the position and history of his country, mean simply the biggest navy in the world. Further light on the President's ideas on this complicated subject is found in his recent interview with th Paris correspondent of the Londo Times, to whom he said: “It is essential to the future pe of the world that there should ft the frankest possible co-operatio and the most generous understand between the two English-speaking: democracies. We comprehend an appreciate, I believe, the grave pr lems which the war has brought the British people, and fully unde: stand the special international qu tions whicl arise from the fac your peculiar position as an i empire.” From the British point of there is much hope for co-operation this statement, for which the L Times says it is “grateful, but means surprised.” Enough has been presented to sk