The Daily News. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1916. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 May 1916, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1916. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

There is something so preposterous in the idea that a claim should be made by any nation for the freedom of the seas that one can only wonder a Power like Germany, whose one dominant principle is that "right is might," should advance such a demandr The seas are open and free to all, both in times of peace and of war, hut when war is taking place the usual risks inherent to hostilities have to be encountered, and if. is because Germany dare not face these risks that she hypocritically demands freedom from molestation. If she had been sufficiently strong in naval power to have swept the British fleets from the seas she would only too gladly have entered on the task of dominating the waterways of the world, and ruthlessly destroying or capturing every enemy vessel afloat or in harbor. As the matter now stands, her navy is ig, nominiously skulking behind mine areas and in protected places of refuge like Kiel. "Britain," said Mr. Balfour recently, "has always fought for the freedom of the seas," and this fact is as well known and appreciated throughout the civilised )vorld as well as by Germany. What that freedom has been under British supremacy is equally well known, but what would it he under Germany's dominance? According to Mr, Balfour, Germany would cast the freedom of the seas to the four winds, and destroy her enemies' trade the moment it suited her, and if any confirmation of this dictum is required it is to be found in Count Reventlow's pronouncement: "Let Germany secure the freedom of the seas for herself." Why? Because, says this Hun firebrand, "it's only value lies in time of war." It is inevitable that in war time the seas must be controlled by the strongest fleet, and it is a bitter pill for Germany ( to swallow that her fleet must virtually "keep in hiding if it is to be preserved. Throughout her history Britain has used her maritime supremacy for the maintenance of freedom and the furtherance o; humanity, but to Germany the freedom of the seas .would mean liberty to destroy lives arul property as she has done on land. That is a difference, but it is a difference which would put back the hands of Time to the darkest era in the world's history, and from such a dire calamity the nations may well pray for deliverance. If the question is impartially examined it" will be seen that the secret of British supremacy does not vest upon- preponderance of strength so much as upon the. protection that it has afforded to the weak and oppressed, as well as the upholding of the right Sn the interests of'humanity generally. Why has Germany in the past been so eager to squander her millions in naval expansion? iPurcly and solely for aggressive purposes that emanate from her lust of conquest. 'No sane person could possibly come to any other conclusion. Germany has never shown any disposition to do otherwise than work for her own aggrandisement. She is thoroughly obsessed with that policy, and has never given a thought for the welfare of other nations, except to bring .them under the iron heel of her tyranny. If Germany was so convinced that British maritime supremacy was detrimental to the welfare of the other nations, why did she not take steps years ago to bring aibout a coalition directed to destroying that supremacy? She knew very well that no argument she could invent would induce other than well-grounded suspicions as tn her motives. The true import of Britain's sea power has never been misunderstood, but it suits Germany's book to treat it as a menace and Britain as a tyrant. Fortunatoly the world now I knows and sees Germany in her true light, and all her hypocrisy , stands revealed. The British Navy still stands for freedom and humanity, and, in spite of German bluster, it must remain su- ' pram*,