Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 10 April 1929, Page 4

Tiik sinking of ;i ship commanded hy n 7>ritisli oHicer, nml living llio British ling, some iwo hundred miles from hind hy mi Amerienn eonstgnnrd hunt Inis nnlnrnllv produced. comments n north, ern writer, snnv' excitement mid n great deni of emotional nnd sometimes livsleriefil writing on both sides nl the A tin’ll ii*. The whole mutter is vtill under inve.stioiton, the chief ndnt nt issue being the question whether the “I’m Alone” wn.s or was not within (tie twelve-mile limit when the Amerienn revenue cutler first challenged her. ft she was less than twelve miles Irom

shore—and not about fifteen miles off, as the captain maintains—the Americans may defend their action successfully in tiie Courts; otherwise they inns give satisfaction to Britain, to Canada, and —if the drowned seaman was really a French subject—to /rulin' as well. But even if they were legally within their rights in this ease Urn Americans would lie well advised not to carry too far their claim to t*n.oree their own laws outside their territorial waters. Mr I'. A. llrittou, •,-! 11 » is chairman of the Naval C'oinmit■eo of the House oi' Representatives, and a fervent ‘‘big navy” man, lias warned the American people of the ossi’r.lc e .nsegiKnees. “If baited States vessels are going to chase ships I miles olf the coast, and sink them oeause they are snspe ted id rum-run-ning, they will he ali.e to chase them ihrongh the English Channel into the .ortli Sea, and sink them.” And what would this mean? Mr Britten says definitely: “Such acts lead to war." No dispassionate person can maintain that L liis view ol the facts is exaggerated. H may be urged that Mr Britten has no sympathy for Rroliibiti n, and there!..re his testim my is prejudiced. But even .1 ibis wore so it would still remain line that the attempt to enforce a law which is extremely unpopular at home is i'iaole to involve serious consequences abroad as well As to the state of public feeling m America regarding the , olslead Act and its enforcement, a iresli piece of evidence is just forthc uning of a singularly illuminating xiiul. More than twenty piomineiit </w Yoim lawyers have issued a muni.esto denouncing as “savage fanatiism” the new statute which imposes i tine of £2090 and live years’ imprisonment for violating the Prohibition law. .hose lawyers are m.t of necessity lov•rs of strong drink, but they resent v> vehemently the infringement of pervinal rights and the injustice that the ..oiv law involves that they are offering their professional services free of barge to “any bootlegger who may be caught in the meshes” of the Jones Act Even supposing that Prohibition could successfully prohibit, it would till Be a question whether it would ,e from the standpoint of public interest desirable to legislate in such a way as to produce the widespread popular revolt against “Volsteadism” and the dangeious friction with foreign countries entailed by such incidents as the sinking of the “I’m Alone.”