The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1911. FOOD AND WAR.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 263, 16 March 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1911. FOOD AND WAR.

Whatever the laymen do not understand about the Declaration of London, about which we have heard so much lately, they will be quite ready to believe that food supplies are vastly the most important consideration in time of war. The articles in the Declaration of London which have caused the greatest amount of controversy are those governing the importation of foodstuffs to a country engaged in war. Hitherto it has been the custom of Great Britain to regard all foodstuffs, not destined for belligerents, as immune from seizure, on the principle that although Britain may be fighting the armed forces of a country, it does not fight the non-combatants by forcing starvation on them. The Admiralty's instructions are very plain. "Provisions and liquors are only seizable when in an enemy's ship, or in a neutral ship, when actually and specially destined for the naval or military forces of the enemy." Many Continental nations, which possibly feci they cannot afford to be so generous, hold that food, whether destined for fighters or non-combatants, should be seized as contraband. It is seen how immensely important the subject is, for a foe clever enough to prevent foodstuffs being landed, say, in Britain, which could eat up its internal supply in a very short time, could inevitably become conquerors. The Declaration of London presents a compromise. But it is at once seen that Continental nations must necessarily view the food question from a totally different standpoint to Britain's. All imported foodstuffs must go to Britain by sea. A Continental Power engaged in war, even after exhausting internal supplies, 'might easily draw on its neighbors without risk. It has been very difficult to arrive at a plain issue because of the ambiguity of the clauses relating to foodstuffs, their destination and use. Article 33 of the Declaration is as follows: Conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war in grogrcss.

The following article explains the foregoing and makes confusion worse confounded: The destination referred to in article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities, or to a contractor established in the enemy country, who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy, or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy. No such presumption, however, arises in the case of a merchant vessel bound for one of these places if it is sought to prove that she herself is contraband. In cases where the above presumptions do not arise the destination is presumed to be innocent. The presumptions set up by this article may be rebutted. Obviously the difficulty would be to decide on what was a "base" and what was not. Sir Edward Grey has, howover, positively asserted that the mere fact that a port is connected by rail or canal with a recognised naval base would ndt Tender that port in itself a base of supply or give an enemy the right to try to seize all foodstuffs going into such a port as contraband. He has also said:

Several among the Great Powers, notably France, Germany, Austria and Russia, have even maintained that foodstuffs can be declared absolute contraband, and therefore liable to capture if destined merely for the peaceful inhabitants of the enemy country. This is a contention which British Governments have, in modern times, consistently opposed as contrary to the true spirit of international law. and its definite abandonment by all the Powers signatories of the Declaration of London is, in the opinion of his Majesty's Government, one of, the many advantages secured by that instrument.

The British rule in regard to contraband has been expressed by Professor Holland, one of the greatest of all international jurists:

Provisions in neutral ships may bo intercepted by a belligerent as contraband only when, being suitable for the purpose, they are on their way to a port of naval or military equipment belonging to the enemy, or occupied by the enemy's naval or military forces, or to the enemy's ships at sea; or when they are destined for the relief of a port besieged by such belligerent.

It has been shown that a vessel talcing corn, meat or other foodstuff from America or Ihe Argentine during a British naval war could with absolute security steam to neutral ports, from whence it would be despatched to Britain under the protection of the Navy. But the illustration is not altogether fortunate. The colonies as producers of foodstuffs are deeply concerned. Under the proposed defence federation of the Empire it is. of course, conceivable that if Britain were at war, the dominions would be presumed to be at war also, and much might happen on the high seas before colonial vessels discharged their cargoes, =.iy, at a Continental port, for transhipment to Britain. It is comforting, however, to know that most of the foodstuffs carried to Britain are sent thither in British merchant ships, and that these, which are not in any way affected by the Declaration of London, would be protected as far as possible by (lie British Navy. As food is the most important consideration of all, either in peace or war, it is clear thai the expansion of colonial trade will necessitate the expansion of means to protect the colonies sea-borne commerce. The protection of food ships is indeed the chief excuse for the creation of colonial navies.