The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast-Times. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1929. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 September 1929, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast-Times. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1929. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

There is one aspect of the naval limitations proposals which Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Mr Hoover are to discuss very soon which is rather of paramount interest, but in respect to which very little publicity has been given so far as announced in respect to the preliminary conversations. That is in regard to the vexed question bound up in.the issue, “freedom of the seas.” In former negotiations the Americans stressed this matter very strongly and wpnt so far as to assert ii the issue could not, be settled by negotiation, America would go on building warships and cruisers, till the United States was assured it could carry its point of asserting its rights on the ocean tree of any possible, opposition. America was desirous that all neutrals in a war period should be free to trade with the belligerents without having to submit to the right of search or of paying any attention to traditional practices in regard to contraband and blockade. In other words, the trading neutrals were to lie free to carry on their commerce as if a war were not on and could back up and support either or both belligerents with munitions and supplies without check. This is obviously a very large issue. In the first place it strikes at the duration of any war. If the belligerents are able to procure supplies and munitions from neutral states a war may go on indefinitely. Vet America professes to be anxious for the limitation of armaments as a means to avoid war. At the same

time, if war is to eventuate, America would wish the conflict prolonged by the clear privilege of supplying the combatants with the Munitions of war. During the late war‘'it was manifest that the blockade was a main factor in ending the war as soon as possible. Had Germany been able to get supplies and munitions without a check the war would have gone on indefinitely. Jt would indeed have been a war of attrition and as a matter of fact, America upon entry j u t 0 the war in 1917, assisted in the blockade of Germany, denying the advantage of the freedom of the seas, to the enemy. The whole principle of; the matter is such that in regard to any limitation of naval building, the point about freedom of the seas should be settled.’ There is no doubt that a. country with the resources America has and the facilities for big business, the United States could reap a. rich harvest in supplying the combatants in a war. America had a taste of that at the outset of the Great War and it w n «- the chet k of the trade by Great Dri - tain which aroused the ire of the ■ Americans. It is certainly not possible to reconcile the claims of America, first in respect to' limitation pro-1 posals, and then for freedom of the seas. To abolish war or minimise it to the fullest degree is-wise, certainly, but on the other hand, rights to neutrals should not be established which would have the effect of making a war which might break out 'of indefinite duration. The rich which the United States enjoyed by . selling to Germany supplies and delivering or at- i

tempting to deliver them at a high cost, appeared to have whetted the business instincts of the Americans to the extent that when checked, they made the boast of an intention to build a navy capable of over-ruling any newer which could seek to thwart the business instincts of America in wartune. The attitude was not maintained consistently, for when the American ileet was sent across it was engaged at once in police duties governing in the main the blockade of the German ports or the entry of shipping to Allied oorts when contraband might be sent into Germanv. Tt is manifest that when a serious conflict arises the rules of war must run their course, and those rules include the checking df supplies from neutrals the effect of which can he only to prolong the conflict and increnset the consequent loss of life. The United States has probably reviewed the matter in a nmre <ons stent 1 ght cf late, which might be one special reason why in the negotiations as far as they have gone we have heard so little about the aspect of the freedom oh the seas.