Subscribers enjoy higher page view limit, downloads, and exclusive features.
F reeflom of the Seas h (Cohtinued From First Page. be exercised within the recognised three-mile limit or not at all. He said: “The power to seize for infraction of law is derived from the sovereign and must be exercised, it would seem, with- in those limits which circumscribe the | sovereign power. The rights of war | may be extended on the high seas, but | the pacific rights of the sovereign must be exercised within the territory of the | sovereign.” Congressional Enactment. Thus one precedent apparently nul- | 1ifies the other. But on March 2, 1799, | Congress enacted that a ship bound to any port or place in the United States might be boarded anywhere within four leagues of the American coast, searched and compelled to show its manifest. Almost a century later, in 1891, the .Supreme Court ruled: “All government for the purpose of self-protection in time of war or for the prevention of frauds on its revenue exercises an authority beyond this limit (three miles).” Once beyond the three-mile limit, however, the doctrine of the right of search and seizure rests on very tenuous g;ecedents. and there does not seem to any general agreement among na- tions. Generally a nation must be guided by the specific circumstances, frankly recognizing, in the words of Marshall's decision in the Aurora case, that if its actions “are such as un- mecessarily to vex and harass fore, commerce foreign nations will resm their exercise, and if they are such as are reasonable and necessary they will be submutted to.” There is no hard- and-fast rule, such as that of absolute control within the three-mile limit. In time of war a neutral nation generally abides very strictly by the “cannon shot” principle. In 1916, for example, the United States expressed its regret at the presence of British | cruisers off its coast. but it did not| deny their right to be there. Actual invasion of the three-mile limit by a | fighting fleet, however, would be para- mount to an invasion of the country and a violation of neutrality. Inter- national law recognizes for merchant ships “the right of innocent passage” through territorial waters. War craft do not have the same right. They enerally are allowed free roadway in e of peace, but their passage may be prohibited at any time. Has Faced Difficult Situations. Absolute control within the three- mile limit and the right of search and seizure for an indefinite distance out- #ice the three-mile limit has involved the United States in some difficult situ- ations, even before the passage of the Volstead act. Previous to the purchase of Alaska by the United States, Russia had tried to assert her sovereignty over all of Bering Sea, with the object of protecting the seals. This right was contested strenuously by Great Britain. Russia admitted that under ordinary circumstances she would be making an extraordinary and untenable claim, but that due to the peculiar breeding habits of the seal, it was necessary to preserve the industry. The matter was com- promised by treaties. ‘The United States inherited this | problem with the purchase of the eat northern territory and asserted | g:r jurisdiction over the seal-inhabited waters, regardless of their actual dis- tance from the coast line. Russia's sealing treaties had come to an end with the relinquishment of her control over the territory. The United States based her assertion of supreme au- thority on the same basis—that the zealing industry constituted the very life of the territory and that if the animals were not protected they would soon become extinct. American Claims Relinquished. ‘This puzzling problem finally was settied by the ngmntmem of an inter- national commission and the relin- guishment of the American claims. ‘The slave trade also produced gling problems in respect to the dom of the seas. Slaves who could escape to British ships anchored outside the three-mile limit, it was ruled by the Court of King's Bench, by the very act of set- ting their feet on deck became free men under the protection of the British flag. Furthermore, any slaves on Amer- ican ships which entered the three- mile-limit of Great Britain or any of her colonies were declared automatically freed. Apparently, however, there was no serious American effort to protest this twist of generally understood inter-; national law., It was up to the slave owners to keep their slaves at home. The United States strenuously main- tains its absolute control witl the three-mile-limit, but ordinarily, as a matter of international courtesy, does not exercise this control over the crew: of foreign ships, It is ready to step in, however. whenever there is need. Outside the three-mile limit war uz- rec- | ground ereates an entirely different situation. A belligerent power always has main- Y8 #eed Aever Wonder whethér the l&fion you want will be in (coming tained the right of affectual hlochde‘l of the enemy coasts, only rule being that the blockade actually must be effectual. Obviously a nation can- not simply declare some port blockaded nd expect other nations to take it 3 But the right of blockade may detérmine the very existence of a nation—a condition under which few tenuous theories of international law would stand the test of practice, In the Civil War the North appar- ently had a serious blockade problem— that of shutting. off imports of war material ~ from ~ approximately 3,000 miles of coast. Actually this was not as difficult as it seemed, since an ef- fective blockade of the ports of Nor- folk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savan- nah, Mobile, New Orleans and Galves- ton was practically all that was needed. Nevertheless this gave rise to one very important precedent upon which !s based the “doctrine of ultimate des- | tination,” now apparently a well es- tablished principle in wartime. In the | Napoleonic wars Great Britain had | maintained the doctrine of continuous voyage—that is the right to seize a neu- tral ship bound indirectly to a French port with war supplies.. In the Civil War British ships carried their cargoes intended for the South to Nassau or Havana, where they were unloaded. Then they would be reloaded on Con- federate blockade runners. To stop this practice the United States began seizing ships on the way to the Baha- mas or Cuba with war supplies, Entirely New Doctrine, Among the captured vessels was the British ship Springbok—London to Nassau, It was taken to New York, where the United States District Court condemned both the ship and its cargo —the decision being based on the doc- trine of continuous voyage as originally lald down by Great Britain. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where a decision was rendered in| 1866. The Springbok was ordered re- Jeased as having a neutral destination, but the cargo was condemned on the | that its ultimate destination, regardless of how many hands it might ass through, was the Confederacy. ¢ separation of ship and cargo con- stitited an entirely new doctrine of in- ternational law. The owners appealed to the British government, but Lord Russell refused to take up the case, on the ground that under the British ap- Pplication of the doctrine of continuous voyage both ship and cargo probably would have been confiscated. But the Springbok was like the bib- lical sowing of the wind and reaping | of the whirlwind. Great Britain's Situation, Great Britain had submitted to the almost complete destruction of her commerce with the Southern States during the Civil War. 8he had seen her textile mills shut down for want of cotton and her mill workers go hungry. Despite her grumbling protests and oc- casional intimations of reprisal, she had remained a fairly consistent neutral —especially in consideration of the greatness of her loss, But .she had not neglected to take | into full account the precedents which were being established. She took espe- cial note of the “doctrine of ultimate destination,” to the establishment of which she had contributed materially by admitting its validity in the Spring- bok case. ‘The next British war was with the Boers. The South Africans were re- celving supplies from Germany over indirect routes through German African possessions. The British captured four German merchantmen under the *‘ul- timate destination” doctrine. The German government protested and Great Britain, not wishing to meddle any further with the delicate interna- tional situation in Europe, which was threatening to bring about the “world war” then and there, released the ships. She did not, however, abjure the doc- trine of ‘“ultimate destination.” She simply didn't have enough at stake to make the argument worth while, ‘World War Conditions. ‘Thus the matter stood at the open- ing of the World War. £ Thus, for all practical purposes, it stands today, for during that struggle the actions at sea of both the allies | and the central powers were so clouded with emotionalism and so lit- tle concerned with absolute “rights” of neutrals that only a legacy of still greater confusion and inconsistency was left to international maritime law. Both belligerents were fighting for their existences, they were fightin a far greater scale than ever had been known in history before, and so in- volved had the scientific progress of a half century made war that there was hardly anything made or consumed by man that could not be considered, without much contortion of logic, war material. The issues soon began to come to & head. Which belligerent made the first move is still debated. But the year 1915 found a situation in which, with [cular strong tonight). If it’s on the air, the C. A. Earl will reach out and bring it in—absolutely free from interference from nearer or more powerful sta- the German Navy bottled up, the allies —principally Great Britain—wefe main- taining an effective blockade of Ger- man ports; and Germany, allegedly in retaliation, turned to that most terrible we! of modern warfare, the sub- marine. Henceforth it was to be & war of starvation. In a sense, Germany had the advan- tage. Great Britain had to depend on obtaining supplies through her own . Germany had an almost unob- structed path across the Baltic Which she cquld obtain supplies from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Hol- land. These were neutral nations and so was the United States. erican commerce with the Baltie nations flourished. Britain Seizes Vessels. Great Britain promptly applied the doctrine of “ultimate destination” and began halting American ships on the high =eas and taking them into British ports, where the cargoes were examined and, if there was sound reason to be- lieve that they contained war material destined for Germany or’ Austria, W— fiscated with due process of law. 0- tests began to pour into the State De- partment over these seizures, and at the same time over the sinking of A‘:Arrlcun ships by German subma- rines. Secretary of State Bryan was in e difficult position. At first he seems to have forgotten all about the Springbok precedent and protested without reser- vation over the interference with American commerce with neutral ports. Through Ambassador Spring-Rice, Earl Grey promptly called Mr. Bryan's attention to the Springbok case. He informed him that on that occasion “this government, whose nationals were the sufferers, looked below the surface at the underlying principle and abstained from all protest.” He went further, pointing out that the geographical position of Germany was such that it was unnecessary for her commerce, like that of England, to go through her own ports, “The exact methods of carrying a blockade into effect,” Earl Grey said. “have varied from time to time. The need of public notification, the requisite | standards of effectiveness, the right of the individual ship to preliminary warning, are subjects on which dif- ferent views have prevailed in different countries and in which the practice of countries has been altered from time to time, “The one principle which has ob- tained universal res ition is that by means of blockade a belligerent is en- titled to cut off by effective means the sea-borne commerce of the enemy.” Protests Are Continued, ‘The American State Department con- tinued to protest. In the Civil War cases, it was pointed out, the ships had been halted and searched on the open sea and taken into port only when it was ascertained that they actually contained “war material.” The British were taking ships bound for neutral countries into port and searching them when they got there, Great Britain replied that in Civil ‘War days it was a comparatively s‘lmg'l! matter for a boarding officer to o termine whether any part of a ship’s cargp was likely to prove of aid or comfort to the enemy, but that the scope of war since had been lened %o tremendously that experts were re- quired to do this work. Instead of delaying commerce by taking ships to British ports for examination, it was pointed out, Britain really was speeding it up. ‘The official correspondence of those days is quite involved and difficult to interpret. The points raised never have been summarized, it is explained at the State Department. The con- fusion which confronts all students of the problem is a potent reason for the present demand for codification of the whole matter, Never Admitied Validity. So far as can be determined the United States never admitted in the World War the validity of the doctrine of “ultimate destination” which she herself had originated in-the Springbok case. This doubtless was inconsistent— but consistencies went to put every- where under the terrific stress and strain of the World War. The United States continued to.protest and Great Britain to maintain her position in dinlomatic correspondence. But affairs rapidly were approaching & condition where there was no further need of argument. ‘Wholesale application by the British of the doctrine of ultimate destination constituted a nuigance to American shipping and possibly a serious violation of American rights. It was conducted, however, strictly in accordance with legal procedure and with scrupulous regard for the lives and comfort of American citizens, On the other hand, Germany was sinking American ships bound for allied ports without warning. The lesser evil was lost sight of In the greater. The United States was forced out of her neutrality into com- mon cause with Great Britain and the argument over the doctrine of ultimate destination naturally came to an end. By that time it was Germany and Austria against practically the whole world. ‘The Scandinavian jports were still open to Germany, buti with all other nations at war with her there was no source from which supplies could come, unless they were delivered by smugglers and 8o this trattors. issue of “freedom, of the a's interests in_ keeping out liquor shipments—and that if these means “are such as unnecessarily to ‘vex and harass forelgn commerce forefgn na- tions will resist their exercise and if as are reasonsble and mecessary they will be submitted to.” And for times of war there is Earl Grey's flat statement: “The ome prin- ciple that has obtained universal recog- nition is that by means of blockade a nation is entitled to cut off by effective means the sea-borne commerce of the enemy.” The United States apparently; has no consistent policy. — e Whales to Be Slain With Electricity Electrocution as & means of facilitat~ ing whale hunting is to be tested this coming season by Norwegian expedi- tions. There are two ways now used in bagging the mammal leviathan of the Arctic, both emplaying harpoons. A harpoon is either shot alone into the whale, the animal tiring itself to death tugging the whaling boat, or is supple- mented by explosives which destroy the vital organs. th methods are cruel and eyen uneconomic because of the whale's great loss of blood before death. By the new plan, an electric cable is to be reeled with the rope connected to the harpoon. When the harpoon is shot into the animals body a strong electric current will be applied to the cable and induce instantaneous death. Electrocution will speed up hunting and make the experience less painful for the whale, but before its adoption it will have to be ascertained whether the electricity affects the quality of the oil which is the main objective in whale huntini "l until the adjournment of Congress in (Continued From First . Post. nmfllblhhedhmtpl r while the Senate was del the treaty, which was later rejected. Senate committee recommended the expulsion of Senator Tappax, but finally the Senate compromised and adopted a resolution of censure after Senator Tappan had presented a formal apology. After the Mexican War President Polk of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the Senate in February, 1848. Almost immediately the full text of this treaty was published in the New York Herald, whose Washington correspond- ent was John Nugent. When Nugent was called upon by the Senate to tell where he obtained the copy of the treaty he refused to do so _and was ordered held for contempt. He sought | to obtain his freedom on a writ of habeas corpus. but was unsuccessful and was held in the custody of the Senate ) August, 1848. But the Senate did not find out where he got the treaty. ‘The New York Tribune in 1871 pub- lished the text of the treaty with Great Britain providing for arbitration of the Alabama claims, and this precipitated another futile investigation. The chief of the Tribune'’s Washington bureau was Zed L. White and his chief assist- ant was H. J. Ransdell. They were lled before a Senate committee and asked where the copy of the treaty came from, but both refused to answer. They then were arrested and held prisoners in one of the committee rooms while the Senate engaged in a prolonged wrang- ling match as to what should be done with them. The public did not react kindly toward the Senate and finally both men were released. Dislike “Letter Writers.” Tn the earlier years of the Nation's pow existence, when Senators were inclined | newspaper men be assigned seats in the | tod: iles of onstrated by the fact that the three the Russian price. to consider themselves ambassadors of sovereign States rather than members of the National Legislature, they were | not so friendly toward newspaper men as most of their successors are toda they paper men in considered the presence of news- the Senate galleries as something of a nuisance. Their chief aversion was to that class of newspaper men known as “letter writers,” fore- runners of the special correspondents of today, who wrote interpretive political articles rather than mere factual ac- counts of official preceedings. In the Congressional Globe of De- cember 22, 1838, it is recorded that: “Mr. Norvell presented the memorial of Willlam Hunt, James F. Otis, Erastus Brooks, William Elwyn Moore, E. King- man and William H. Whitman, stating that they are severally reporters of congressional proceedings for the Baltimore American, New York Ex- press, Ohio Statesman, Georgia Jour- nal, Southern Patriot, Charleston Courier, Mobile Register, .Lancaster Intelligencer, and that by the rule of | the Senate they are deprived of the| opportunity and privilege of obtaining information of congressional proceed- ings for their respective papers; that menfimvhkm of the Senate exclusively furnishing the facilities they ask to city reporters does not furnish the people of the country with full re- ports of what takes place until several days after the date of such transactions, whereas it is the duty and purpose of the above-named reporters to transmit such intelligence by each day’'s mail; and praying that the Senate may as- sign them such seats on the floor, or in the galleries, as may enable them to discharge their duties to those whose agents they are. The miemorial was referred to the committee on the con- tingent fund.” Writers Given Seats. On January 4, 1839, while Senators were still mellowed with Christmas cheer and good will, the committee| presented a recommendation that the gallery. Whereupon Senator Connecticut declared that | “Was somewhat, surprised at a prop-| osition that that body (the Senate) signing them seats within the chamber. Who were these persons who styled themselves reporters? Why, miserable slanderer—hirelings hanging on to the skirts of literature, earning a miser- able sul ce from their vile and dirty misrepresentations of the pro- ceedings here, and many of them writ- ing for both sides. Senator Buchanan of Pennsylvania chimed in to announce that he was op- posed to the proposition, although, ac- cording to the Globe: ig. his own part, he could not say that he had any personal feelings in relation to these letter writers. He bore with as much philosophic patience as any other gentleman that portion of in- fliction with which they had thought proper to visit him; and he could not say that they had abused him more than he had reason to expect. He was never mortified by but one letter, and that had been written, he believed, to a Maine newspaper, in which he was rep- resented to be a venerable old gentle- man, apparently between 60. and 70| years of age. This, he acknowledged, had touched him upon a tender point.” Times Have Changed. But times. have changed. Now that | Senators are elected by popular vote | they are more interested in keeping their names before the public and the newspapers offer a convenient channel for purpose. far as ordinary legislative business is concerned, many Senators go to more trouble to bring their activities to the attention of the press than the newspaper men do to obtain such information. Indeed, so far as executive business is concerned, the question seems to have narrowed down to that of secrecy as to debates and votes on controversial nominations. Originally the great and plausible argument for secret sessions was that it might be improper or even dlnremua to discuss treaties in open session because of the possible effect on international relations. That was a potent argument when the United | States was a weak and struggling | But it commands little respect | v, even in the Senate, as is dem- | most important treaties since the World | War—the treaty of Versailles, the World Court_protocol and the Kellogg muiti- gested, rather ically, that e uE)el'!ect.ly willing t0 debate treaties in the open because foreign nations do not have votes in the Senators’ con. stituencies, as do the friends and en- emies of nominees for Federal offices. Fossil 200,000 Years Old On Display in Japan ‘What is the largest fossil ever found in Japan and one of the largest brought to light in the world, according to Japanese sclentists, was discovered recently in the village of Takikawa on a peninsula south of Tokio. This is a bone measuring 3 feet 5 inches in length and weighing 24.75 pounds. Two members of the Tokio Imperial Uni- versity faculty, who examined the find, declared it to be about 200,000 years old. The scholars say that the bone is that of a mammoth which lived on the peninsula when it was part of the great land mass which later sank and was below the sea a long time. They surmises that the mammoths were killed when the ice age came down and turned this part of the world into a vast freezing mass. Other animals were probably living at that preglacial period, the men declare, and the university is planning to start an investigation to see if more fossils and remains cannot be found. Russian Competition Hurts Ulster Spinning TUlster's spinning interests complain that they are being hard hit by im- ports from Soviet Russia, During the past few weeks about 250,000 bundles of yarn reached Belfast from Russia and at a cost of 25 cents a bundle less than the Northern spinners can quote. It is said that no spinner in Great Britain or Northern Ireland can pro- duce these yarns within 25 per cent of r Hence spinning mills _are gither closing down or go- ing on short time. When Northern Ireland sends its 13 members to the f'.‘ should sanction, and in some manner | lateral treaty for the renunciation of | British Parliament they will have in- Not only did they object to the publi- indorse, the vile slanders that issued|war—have all been debated and voted | structions to endeavor to obtain pro- cation of secret executive business, but daily from these letter writers by as-!upoh in open seasion. It has been sug- ' tection against the Russian imports. Kaufmann’s—“THe Home of Character Furniture” Annual July Clearance Sale 207, Reductions on OQur Entire Stock of Furniture _ Bedroom Suites; Living Room Suites, Dining Room Suites and Occasional Pieces—Quan- tities are Limited—Come Early for Best Selections. ~ 18 Months " to Pay 0dd Bedroom Pieces Walnut French Vanity Walnut Semi- Vanity Walnut French Vanity Walnut- Finished Dresser Walnut- Finished Dresser Walnut- Finished Dresser % } #1922 [$24:15 262 #1258 J bEE 192 Bed-Davenport 3-pe. 3-pc. 3-pc. 2-pc. 3-pc. 3-pc. 3-pec. Sweeping Reductions Bedroom Furniture 4.Pc. Walnut Bedroom Suite "5, $78.50 3-Pc. Walnut Bed. Suite Presr Bed and Vanity §O8 75 4-Pc. Walnut Bedroom Suite. ... 6-Pc. Walnut Bedroom Suite. .. seee See these wonder values Suites. 3-pc. Jacquard Living Roem Suite ................$79.50 Jacquard Living Room Suite ................ Jacquard Living Room Suite ....... 3-pc. Mahogany-frame LivingRoom Suite. Jacquard Frame Living Room Suite . Mahogany-frame Living Room Suite . Jacquard Bed-Davenport Suite. ... .. Jacquard Bed-Davenport Suite ......... Mahogany Bed-Davenport Suite ..............$198 Mahogany Bed-Davenport Suite...............$229 18 Months to Pay ..5119.00 ..$129.50 18 Months Walnut Buffet, Now Walnut China Cabinet Walnut Buffet, Now Walnut China Cabinet Mahog- any In- closed Server Walnut ’in Living Room and $109 ..8129 ..$159 .$165 .$185 $129 $172.50 I Server to Pay 0dd Dining Room Pieces (#2122 (#16-2 (%2622 vAE. 9212 (#1022 nclosed Wonderful Savings on Dining Room Furniture 10-Pc. Walnut Dining Room Suite. 10-Pc. Walnut Dining Room Suite. 10-Pc. Walnut Dining Room Suite. 10-Pc. Walnut Dining Room Suite. . ..$79.50 ..$109.00 ..$129.50 .$169.50 il The house of Jordan heartily endorses and ecommends to thele friends . Washipron. Qi 18 Months to Pay 18 Months to Pay 20% -KAUFMANNS 20% SAVINGS ~ 1415 H Street N.W. SAVINGS