THE NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 416, 27 January 1909, Page 11

THE NAVAL CONFERENCE.

VITAL ISSUES.

(By H W. "Wilson, in the "Daily Mail.") ' It. ifi -a singular fact tliat thc .International Naval Confcrenco should have/attracted. so ;in : Britain. : ; ; '-If,"an '.interna-. /■■ tioiial committee were to assemble :to revise tho' laws of cricket ,or Rugby football, its programme would be' discussed .for: weeaß :beforeiiand, and the;qnostion whether tho proposed'changes would make for tho success or fftilure: of British teams would bo debated .everywhere. ■ This ; : conference,-howevor, meets to revise and:;decide•;something: ,far : more important - than/the :-rules of' any game—the: conditions : of the life-and-death struggles by which na.(tionsi'Attle >■ their, differences upon the . soa. At every ipbint' its rulings must concern tho Britisli' nation. ' . , • • • . The'-'Powers represented at the: conference are ten .'in number. They are England, Franco,': the. United States, Japan, Germany, Austria; Italy, Russia, .the Netherlands, and : -;j Spain,';sO; that England,; whose' naval supremacy- in;oompletcd ships is; still unchallenged,, and' have for!; .five -centuries made'.the: maritime law of'the .world by their decisions, 'will be liable at any ■ moment to find.herself in a minority of one; against nine. •' No bther'State possesses such a fleet as hers, . : such a naval history, or such, a body of pre- . cedent-pd law. : Immense, then, is her sacri:fioe to>tho cause'of progress: in. submitting to a .TOngress of'foreigii diplomatists the conl. ditipni.'on which may .Tvell depend. her very breath''find being. > ; At-'the Hague Conference of 1907 the British Government supported the creation of an International Prize: Court, to settle all questions'.'cenoerning the ' treatment of.- neutral ; property at sea r by belligerents. - The German i Government,", on'.the same Occasion, brought forward counter-proposals under which. tho : Court . would deal not only , with these qiies- .:■ tionsi'ibiit, also with tho .treatment:' of. ■ bellig.;flrentlpro^rty. byvthe.:c6mbatants ) ';'w ; ho .were. . to. on. the tribunal. -'. The two, Sphemes. Tho difference between tho two. schemes can scarcely; bo exaggerated. ■ The British . plan was'relatively ; unobjectionable . : and . practi- ' cal. ; ivDndor tho German scheme, in the-event of between England and Germany, a ■ British captain in command.of ia cruiser who: captured L -a German liner would be liable/to r be drdgced before the, court and to have his prize,:taken -away N from him., /.The naval of-. never know where he stood, and • instead,'" bf obeying" hisadmirals / and//, commander, interprotihg- tho common law of .- England, would bo really subject to an alien authority—the Court at the Hague. : . • Tho/llague i Conference, however, accepted the Gorman view, and drew up: a convention by which fifteen judges were to compose tho • now, Court. But as no answer could bo found to. the 1 quostion,: "What law was this tribunal vto administer P." and as there was no bodyvof international - law. or < precedent, uni!versiily - recognised / and . accepted;/ in. these mattoh, .the British Government finally do- , clined to ratify the convention). ' and sum-, moned.tho present conference at once to draw up' and settlo the form of Court to admmistei it" The' difficulty which ' arose at the ; Hague . between England and Germany, .will probably, assert! itself afresh.' Between the German and:tho:British views, as to the scope of tho now' Court, there is no possible l compromise. • That/is the first reef in the course/of the plenipotentiaries.' 1 The; main .issues to bo- discussed, suppos-. ing that this difference, can: be happily setc tled/* are, according to Sir: Edward .Grey, those 1 concerning the ;law- of? contraband and blockade. " Tho capture of private property at sea'. is':not.to.be raised... Contraband goods are goods which, a-neu- .... tral ira'ay not furnish toa: belligerent; except. ■ at. his own risk, and which, when > found on board': neutral' ships, render them. liable to arrest. In tho past, the British ,Courts were alleged by .-the..Continental:'Powers'. to:< have treated neutrals,; carrying v yitli/ " extreraV ; finition of ( contraband to. articles actually used/in' naval or land war, ; such as powder, hemp,! and timber, for-rship construction, and >■ did/not-admit doubtful, articles except: when ; :thoy,.wore:on the way to a hostile -naval port.: such'contraband goods to bo destroyed at sea by their captors./ The . ships had to bo brought intoVa British port, and to be regularly condemned by a British Court, whore the neutral was.given a-fair, hearing. : ' • The Law of Contraband. In recent wars,. however, our: Continental; critics have, shown .a disposition: to. stretch: tho law of contraband and render practically everything liable to condemnation-under-this-./hMd.JgTheyr have /.also' , claimed, tho right to destroy neutral vessels carrying, such alleged : .ooitraband on-tho high 'seaii'/withdut-trial.ot; condemnation. •.: Repeatedly •• the - Russian cruisers l during tllo;reoent.;war in 7 tho vPar. - East.fdestroyedv.British /vessels- these : conditions, >and. for such destruction, no com-? pensation has-been paid. - Further, the 1 Russian/ Government, strovo 1 to mako food of every kind and such raw materials 'as/cotton' /contraband,'; on','the';igr<jund: that they.- mightbe- used by tho armed forces- of Japan; thus /widely, extending, .the/rights of,the belliger-.: ent. : Tho. British Government, to free neutral shipping from such interference in time of. ./war;/proposed'. at/the Hague . Conference'-that} contraband goods should ;be . abolished. -/ It obtained ,no support, howevery and no. con- ; elusion was arrived' at as't-o what contraband - roallyj'was,-or .whether food/was'to-be .treated vas:sUch.,-/Ifi however, food. and. raw materials' '.are/to be pronounced contraband, theri it is"' ~ clear."j:,tbat; an - enemy,; in-/any ...war: iii which : England was engaged, could seize every ;nep-„ trajs ship carrying/wheat. and meat/to these islands and incalculably' increaso the 'difilc'fi.Hiy of : preventing, the -British: populatioh" from / stariring; ,///'/-'"://;:i/:?:$-/ ;'vH'Z ;1 //:v::C : : //: C: : ' •On the question of destroying neutral, ships i at^ea/no.\decision'was.reached','bii^ proposal to prohibit such action was vigorously.: opposed by Russia. - If suph a practice - is'to?be/permitt^i/.the danger to : British commerce in every war in which .Britain is a .; neutral ;will bo enorinously enhanoed.. ';',. : '^.WHn/;.regard.-'.te'.'.th6;.' i law; , of'.'i)lifckade,'';at the Haguo attempts were made oy tho Contincrital Powers to limit - the .operation of - : blockade—or the closure of hostile coast-line to all commerce—to the immediate proximity: . enemy's coast, arid to require special v conditions .of notice- tho perpetual- pre- . sencft'of : stationary ; ships-off- the coast 'block-. : aded.// This tended, to' Restrict tho power of. -.-ay supreme' Navy to .prevent an enemy : from carrying on his commerce-by sea. But, at --' the^.'sametime, / varibus'" Powers, claimed the right' to blockade , hostile, commercial ports without > notice by. mooring mines: off} them, ; whether or not neutral commerce was injur«l thereby. ' The Powers which claimed this / right ; were Germany, Russia, and Franco.' - - ; - . The Plaolng df Minos. , I^.'^i<fe•;V^:adopted : bado/the placing pf- mines for, "the sole obi'ect ofintercepting' commercial ..navigation,'.'.l iut/as .'it' will- always -be possible to - allege that the mines have been placed for military reasons, and as there is virtually, no safeguard in- thV provision' adopted at the Haguo, that notice ot'.the danger to navigation must bo':'given "as soon as military requirements permit,'.' there is nothing to. prevent Germany,. in a. war with -England, from sending, mine-shijis to, the British commercial ports , • hi*,the: night and layirig chains of mines across; the entrances. Any ship which strikes them / will sink, .probably with all on board. . -,There W nothing -whatever to /suggest tliat Germany will abandon her claim at the pre-■ . sent Conference,: and thus), so'far as can be ; Been; the:. Continental Powers / Mill . strive on . -the,;',one'.'hand''-'t'o": prevent the , strong navy .irom exercising iits.;historic and, legitimate right to close a hostile port by maintaining a naval force off it or at a safe distance from it;' and, /on the other,they will assert : a-jnew 1 , right on tho part of the weaker navy to close without notice tho ports of an arir Wgonist by a weapon which knows r rio distinctions of flag or ses, and the employment • of'which/may result -in wholesale slaughter of neutrals and non-combatants. / : Iri the same way, the; right' to lay mines' on tho.;open sea'was;/asserted;.at the Hague,: tHough/not without'a strenuous protest from the British Government. This is a question which ; should be discussed at the new Conference,; but it is probably quite hopeless to look for any agreement. .// :■