The Daily News. FRIDAY, DECEMBER'S, 1904. NOTE AND COMMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 288, 9 December 1904, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, DECEMBER'S, 1904. NOTE AND COMMENT.

This question is again coining to the fore. J udeino* DARDANELLES from the article in QUESTION. the Novoe Vremya referred to ill the catolo messages Russia is bent upon sweeping away almost the last vestige remaining of i the Trea/ty of Paris, and obtaining the right of free passage for lier warships in and out of the Black Sea. A short time ago it was asserted in the London Press that a secret agreement had been come to between Russia and Turkey, virtually abdicating in favour of St. Petersburg that nominal control over the Dardanelles, which diplomatic conventions assign to Constantinople. The London DailyNews, scornful of Mr Balfour's capacity in the field of world politics, insisted that everybody was cognisant of the secret agreement save His Britannic Majesty's Government only. But Mr Balfour is only too well aware of. the fact, it would seem from the St. James' Gazette, and it is a source of growing anxiety to him, inasmuch as Russia has resolved to pass her Black Sea Fleet through the Dardanelles. Such a step would impress Japan with the importance of her alliance with Great Britain, an alliance to which she would at once appeal, no doubt, and one more crisis will have been added to the goodly number of acute situations with which the war is overwhelming the world. The Westminster Gazette, extricating its ideas from the maze of treaties of 1841, 1856, and 1871, which form an international agreement (.hat "no ship of war belonging to a foreign power shall be permitted to pass into the Dardanelles while the Porte is at peace," arrives at these conclusions "Supposing the treaty to he broken, what is the remedy ? The first w;ii;l is with the Sultan, whose 'ancient, rule' has been broken. Hut supposing that the Sultan connives at tl,e breach, or that he has made his protest, and been overborne by force majeure, what then ? Has each of the signatory Powers a separate right of protest, and have thev ftll a joint and several responsibility, or can the prot.est only be mode 'by the Powers in concert? Russia, apparently, is inclined to put forward the doctrine that the 'European principle' can o-nly be enforced by a European concert, and that separate Powers have no separate remedy. The question is academic in one sense since any Power can, if it chooses, make its protest and enforce it by declaring war ; but in estimating the possibility of a diploma! ic protest and the answer likely to be made, it is important to be sure of the formal ground. So far as we are concerned, it has to be borne in mind that we have hitherto sought rather to limit than to extend our separate responsibility in this matter. Thus* in a prcrtocol of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, Lord Salisburv said, on behalf of England, I,hat the obligations of Her Britannic Majesty relating to the closing of the straits do not go farther than an engagement with the Sultan to respect in this matter I-lis Majesty's independent determination in conformity with the'spiri:t of existing treaties ' Thus defined, our engagement is to respect,' not necessarily to defend the rights of the Sultan. Pinallv the question occurs, What is the position of Japan in this matter The answer is that she is not a signatory to the treaties barring the passage of the Dardanelles, and has no legal right of protest against their infraction, except on the ground that the infraction of any treaty is wrong. It has been suggested to some quarters that if Turkey either permitted' or failed to prevent the passage of Russian warships she would have violated neutrality, and have 'become in law a belligerent Tower on the side of consequence of which would be that our treaty with Japan would com-' pel us to intervene on the side of the Japanese. This soems to us farfetched. Turkey would plead that she could not te made a belligerent against her will, on the ground of a proceeding which-she was powerless to prevent. In the impossible event of an attempt by Russia to force her warships through the Dardanelles, the duty of preventing her would devolve upon the Powers who arc signatories to the treaties. Failing their effective intervention, it would then be purely a question of policy for us—a Question whether our own interests or our moral obliga'tions to Japan compelled us to interfere single-handed."

ON THE FOURTH PACJI' Ljtei'aiture. C.omjnerciai.