The Dominion SATURDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1918. A NAVAL PARTNERSHIP

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 79, 28 December 1918, Page 6

The Dominion SATURDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1918. A NAVAL PARTNERSHIP

The return of the American battleship fleet to its home waters is something more than a national occasion. The great fighting ships which steamed up New York harbour a day or two ago, with the mighty Arizona at the head of the line, have played their part in the war and earned the rousing welcome they were accorded. But it is probably not over .sanguine to believe that the event marks rather the beginning than the end of a naval partnership of the Englishspeaking peoples—a partnership that will stand henceforth as one of the strongest guarantees of world peace. Just how closely such a partnership has been approached may be better known when Pbesident Wilson has made that clear statement of his attitude on the question of the freedom of the seas which it is said he intends to make before leaving England. But even if it should appear that the President still feels bound to adhere to the somew,hat impracticable ideas on this subject .which he expounded so earnestly in the earlier stages of the war, it will hold good that the foundations of a united policy on the part of the English-speaking peoples have been firmly laid, and nowhere more firmly or with better promise for the future than in relation to the maintenance and exercise of sea-power. In the simplest view it must count for a great deal that in the later stages of the war the fighting ships of the United States became for practical purposes part and parcel of the British Navy. None have spoken ,in more generous terms of this union of force than American sailors. It was, for instance, Admiral Sims (who was in charge of American naval operations in European waters) who declared not long ago that the British Grand Fleet was the foundation stone of the cause of the whole of the Allies. "Americans," he added, "seem to regard it as a miracle of their lleet that a million and, a half troops have been got over and protected on the way. _Wo didn't do .that; Great Britain did." It is safe to say that by this time the American people •have a much better understanding of the essential facts of war at sea, than when Admiral Sims spoke and that the fruits of this understanding will be of lasting benefit to the world. The unity of purpose in which the two nations were and are combined nowhero found better expression than in the intimate association of their naval forces, and certainly nothing is better, calculated than this association to confirm them in lasting friendship. But the fact that .in a supreme international crisis British and American naval forces became one opens at the same time very much wider prospects.

Before the war Britain and tho United States stood for extremely divergent views ' in regard to the exercise of sca-pewer. The American doctrine was, in brief, that in time of war all private property, whether ships or cargoes, .should be exempt from seizure or destruction, but that contraband goods destined for a belligerent Government should be liable to seizure and confiscation. .The application of this doctrine would not only abolish the right of attacking enemy commerce, but would make it a simple matter for an utterly unscrupulous government like that of Germany to pursue an almost unchecked course of piratical destruction under a cover of peaceful trading. Britain, in essentials, both before and during the war, upheld tho right of attacking enemy commerce subject to all possible consideration being shown for the rights and interests of neutrals. The events of the war have very thoroughly vindicated British sea policy, and the vindication is nowhere better emphasised than in the loyal cooperation of American squadrons with the British Navy. It would be strange if this enlightening experience did not lead to a revision and amendment of the American doctrine of sea-power. The position now to be faced was admirably stated some time ago by Professor Ramsay Muir. Tn modern times (he wroto) every tin-cat to tho liberty of free n'ations liae coino from n great land power. In overy case it has been broken against the resistance of sea-power, which is by itself unablu to threaten the existence of any state, but is very strong for defence. To disarm wea-power while leaving Innd-pon-er in'possession of all its weapons of offence, as the American doctrine would do, would not merely be au injustico to tho Powers which depend upon seapower, but would be a positive danger to the liberties of the world. Sea-power must not bo disarmed unless and until liind-power is equally effectually disarmed. And this will not bo until the dniigor of war han been practically brought lo nn end. Complete freedom' of the sens in time of war is therefore an impossible ideal, becauso it cannot bo justly or mfely established until the danger of war iteelf has .been conjured away.

It is possible that in the very near future the reduction of armaments on both land and sea may arise, as a practical issue, but so long as the bare possibility exists of any nation emulating Germany's criminal aggression Britain will have as good reasons for maintaining a strong Navy as she lias to-day. "Any development and expansion of the American Navy would; of course, lie regarded all over Lhe Empire as adding to the safeguards already afforded by the .British Navy. There is no question of naval competition between the two branches of_ the English-speaking race, but failing some more comprehensive arrangement under k. League of

Nations the British Empire ami the United States may come to share the burdens . which Britain hitherto has carried almost unaided in keeping the highways of the sea open and safe and maintaining in a dominant Navy a sure shielcl against the attack of unscrupulous Powers bent, on plunder.