1914, rate, and the ocean freight charges are the same as for December, 1914, the American farmers and business men will pay to ship-owners, principally foreign, increased freight charges above the normal rates of $216,224,400, or more than five times the $40,000,000 which the Government proposes by the shipping bill to put into American ships for the protection of our foreign commerce."

Reports from federal officials at different shipping ports were submitted to the Senate showing congestion at the docks. In Norfolk cotton had accumulated to the amount of five and a half million dollars' worth, awaiting shipment. In Baltimore grain had so accumulated that the railways were refusing to accept any more for transportation to that port. A similar condi-. tion was reported for New York. This congestion. was reported also in the cases of tobacco, lumber, flour, cotton-seed, oil and other commodities. Considering these facts, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch speaks of the ship-purchase bill as "a measure vital to the public welfare," and the Lewiston Evening Journal charges the opponents of the bill with being defenders of the British shipping monopoly. "Every ship subsidist," according to the Louisville Evening Post, "has united to obstruct this measure of relief," and it denounces the seven Democratic Senators who opposed it as engaged in "a most sinister alliance under Penrose and Lodge and

151

conclusive policy which redounds little to the credit of those who devised it, and which cannot appeal to real advocates of an American merchant marine." Such is the case for the measure as it has appeared in the decidedly meager discussion before the public. "Seldom can so big a measure have been shrouded in such obscurity," remarks the N. Y. Evening Post.

Existence of a Ship Famine Is Denied.

ACCORDING to the advices which the paper just

quoted had from Washington, the President and his advisers were entirely surprised at the opposition that has arisen. They expected the approval of the country and least of all did they expect a bolt in the Democratic ranks. If that was the view held, their sagacity was very much at fault. Even the famine in

ships, upon which the argument for the bill rests, is vigorously disputed. The excess of exports over imports for the last three months, so the N. Y. Times points out, has been at the rate of $1,375,000,000 a year. It is not shipping, we are assured, that is wanting. The trouble is in the lack of distribution after the goods are shipped. In England, for instance, the railways are monopolized for military purposes and a number of ports are closed for naval reasons, and those which are left open are not equipped for the business thrust upon them. "Prices rise altho there is an actual excess of supply in the warehouses and in the ships awaiting unlading. Coal is not delivered by the ton but by the package carried in taxicabs." Ten days is the minimum time of delay for ships in British ports and they are at times kept standing in line for weeks before they can discharge their cargoes. Then the return trip must be made without a normal supply of either freight or passengers. The N. Y. Journal of Commerce points out the scarcity of men in the ports of the warring nations as an additional reason for the expensive delays. This shortage of labor is, according to the Liverpool Steam

DRILLING THE RESERVES

-Kirby in N. Y. World

Root." The Hearst papers were loud in favor of the bill up to the time that the change was made providing for the lapse of government operation two years after the war ended. Then it railed at the bill as a futile makeshift.. "The American people," it observed, "will uphold any measure to replace the flag on the seas. They will rally with enthusiasm around the endeavor to make the new merchant marine independent of either British or trust control. But to go through the motions of building up a fleet which is to be deserted instantly upon the declaration of peace is a futile and in

PERISCOPES!

-Carter in N. Y. Sun

tion in the press of the United States, is putting it mildly. Official descriptions of this new verboten sign issued by the imperial government seemed but to aggravate the sensation. The Rochester Post-Express speaks of "Hot-Air Blockades." The Chicago Tribune sees an attempt at "practical blockade by intimidation." The proposed use of fear gives currency to the term "psychological blockade." The Philadelphia Ledger and many other journals call it a "paper blockade" which international law does not recognize. The N. Y. Tribune describes it as a "Threat of Lynch Law Against Neutral Shipping." The N. Y. Evening Sun characterizes it as "A New Zone of Horror.' The N. Y. Evening Post refuses to get excited over the order on the ground that it is three-quarters bluff, and it says: "That a few roving submarines can destroy the sea. power of a country that itself has twice as many submarines as the German navy possesses it is preposterous to imagine." None the less so many “inconceivable” things have been happening every week of the war that

the Charleston News and Courier sees only one safeguard against our embroilment in the contest, namely

that neither side is seeking new enemies. The N. Y. World declares that "the Berlin proclamation makes neutrality almost as hazardous as belligerency, and that is a doctrine that neither this country nor any other neutral nation can accept."

Neutral Protest to Both Belligerents.

AMONG other neutrals Holland was first to follow

the lead of the United States in its double protest. Almost unanimously, the news rs in this country insist that as a self-respe ral nation we could do no less than vigorously protest against that part of the new declaration of German policy affecting neutrals. The protest made by our government prior to the date. fixed for making the war zone effective has been overwhelmingly approved by the press, irrespective of party affiliations. The protest made to Great Britain at the same time regarding her alleged misuse of our flag has also been heartily commended. "The protest to Ger. many is sharper than that to Great Britain," observes the Boston Transcript, "but Germany's offense is greater."

"To neither Germany's assertion of a blockade that is invisible until it comes up from the depths of the sea, nor that the destruction of a neutral ship under these circumstances would be only a regrettable accident, can the United States assent, and it now dissents so emphatically and so clearly that if the relations of the two countries become strained, Germany alone will be responsible for the tension. Americans should all stand behind the Administration in solid support and in hopeful expectation that its firmness will not evaporate as it did in Mexico."

Where Neutrals Come in on a
Starvation Policy.

WHILE the quoting of "international law" continues

to be the practice of the belligerents, it is remarkable how many things appear to be invented or employed in actual warfare to which, as the Washington Post observes, "international law does not apply." Starvation of the enemy, for instance. Whether a starvation policy adopted by either Great Britain or Germany is right or wrong does not concern the United States, according to the Post; but "if it entails unlawful disruption of American commerce, the United States

153

is in duty bound to protest and to make its protest effective." This paper thinks the chief purpose of the German declaration is "to demonstrate that two can play at the same game of trying to starve out the enemy." The Wall Street Journal suggests that "if Germany would come out frankly and announce that she proposed to use every means, regardless of humanity, and ask no favors, the position taken, even if unmoral, would at least be logical. But the demand that all the world, belligerents and neutrals as well, shall ob- . serve the strictest Queensberry rules, while she hits below the belt, or even hits the referee, is the veriest squealing." On the other hand, the St. Louis Star insists that England "has undermined, almost destroyed, the rights of neutrals in commerce with belligerents, and that this action is now about to react upon her own head."

New Submarines and Blockade Doctrines.

THIS reaction argument the Star develops as follows: recognized type of blockade of German ports, so Eng

The new factor of submarines has prevented the

land has extended the blockade to the open sea by her navy. Then she extended "international law" to include cargoes of conditional contraband not destined directly for German troops. Neutrals submitted under protest. Berlin's decree, by which the government takes over breadstuffs of the empire, was followed by England's making food for Germany absolute contraband, whether under neutral flags or not. Germany has equal right with Great Britain to extend its blockade to the high seas by the navy it possesses. The difference is, England has the power to do it with surface-sailing cruisers and battle-ships, which can capture ships and send them into port with prize crews. Germany cannot do this, but she can sink them with her submarines. Britain first broke away from formerly accepted practices, and is estopped from insisting that Germany be confined to the limits established for her own purposes. As a matter of fact, the Star adds, "international law and the rights of neutrals have been completely disrupted, by Germany first on land and by England first on the water. International law, after all, is only the rights and privileges nations have been willing to maintain. Belligerents have, in the past, been compelled to respect neutral rights at sea because neutrals were willing to go to war to assert them." The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reminds us that this country stands now, as it has stood all the way through, on the recognized doctrines of international law, recognized as fully by English authorities as by our own. But, says the Hartford Times, in view of the war conditions which so flatly contradict all that is the foundation of civilization-might the only law and anything permissible which cannot be prevented by greater might-"unless the people involved are polite to us, what are we going to do about it?" This question becomes still more pertinent on reading Germany's reply to our protest, described by the headliners as "friendly but firm." It is polite in tone, but it distinctly refuses to make any concession from the policy laid down. Neutral ships must keep out of the new war zone or take chances of destruction by mines or submarines. Germany disclaims all responsibility for such "accidents." The comment elicited in American papers by this reply corresponds closely to that quoted above elicited by the original proclamation.

UCCESS in war depends so much on surprises that history is made very rapidly. Now and then one must think back to what produced a given state of mind at a particular crisis. Hardly had the troublesome cargo of difficulties over British seizures of ships been steered into diplomatic channels (described in

DON'T SHOOT!

-Columbus Evening Dispatch

service. She has declared the entire North Sea to be an area of war, impeding the passage of neutral shipping and virtually effecting an illegal blockade of neutral coasts. "All these measures have the obvious purpose, through the illegal paralyzation of legitimate neutral commerce, not only to strike at the German military strength but also ae economic life of Germany, and, finally, through starvation, om the entire population of Germany to destruction.

Criticism and Appeal to Neutrals.

man document asserts that the neutral powers have

"The waters around Great Britain, including the whole of the English Channel, are declared hereby to be included within the zone of war, and after the 18th inst. all enemy merchant vessels encountered in these waters will be destroyed, even if it may not be possible always to save their crews and passengers.

"Within this war zone neutral vessels are exposed to danger since, in view of the misuse of the neutral flags ordered by the government of Great Britain on the 31st ultimo and of the hazards of naval warfare, neutral vessels cannot always be prevented from suffering from the attacks intended for enemy ships.

"The routes of navigation around the north of the Shetland Islands in the eastern part of the North Sea and in a strip thirty miles wide along the Dutch coast are not open to the danger zone."

This mercantile warfare, it is explained by a German government memorandum, is retaliation against a mercantile warfare which has been carried on by Great Britain against Germany "in a way that defies all the principles of international law." Britain is definitely accused of arbitrary listing of contraband, abolishing the distinction between absolute and relative contraband, seizing non-contraband German property on neutral ships and impressing Germans liable for military

government; that aid even has been given by export and transit embargoes which have hindered transit of wares. for peaceful purposes to Germany. Neutrals have seemingly been satisfied with theoretical protests when Great Britain pleads her vital interests for violations of international law; therefore, in fact, neutrals "accept the vital interests of belligerents as sufficient excuse for every method of warfare." So "Germany must now appeal to these same vital interests, to its regret," being forced to military measures of retaliation against British procedure. Just as Great Britain designated the North Sea a war area, so does Germany declare the war area around Great Britain. The warning of the Admiralty proclamation is amplified, in order that there may be no mistake about it, thus:

"Germany will endeavor to destroy every enemy merchant ship that is found in this area of war, without its always being possible to avert the peril that thus threatens persons and cargoes.

"Neutrals are therefore warned against further intrusting crews, passengers, and wares to such ships. Their attention is also called to the fact that it is advisable for their

ships to avoid entering this area, for even tho the German

naval forces have instructions to avoid violence to neutral ships, in so far as they are recognizable, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered by the British government

and the contingencies of naval warfare, their becoming victims of torpedoes directed against enemy ships cannot always be averted. . .

"It is to be expected that the neutral powers will show no less consideration for the vital interests of Germany than for those of England, and will aid in keeping their citizens and the property of the latter from this area. This is the more to be expected as it must be to the interests of the neutral powers to see this destructive war end as soon as possible."

ON

What Would Happen if an American Ship Were Destroyed? NE week before the effective date of the proclamation, our State Department cautioned Germany regarding the very serious possibilities of the contemplated course of action, and at the same time cautioned Great Britain regarding the use of the flag of a neutral power. The sole right of a belligerent, says the note to Germany, in dealing with neutral vessels on the high seas, is limited to visit and search, barring an effective blockade. "To declare or exercize a right to attack and destroy any vessel entering a prescribed area of the high seas without first certainly determining its belligerent nationality and the contraband character of its cargo would be an act so unprecedented in naval warfare that this Government is reluctant to believe that the Imperial Government of Germany in this case contemplates it as possible." And further: "The suspicion that enemy ships are using neutral flags improperly can create no just presumption that all ships traversing a prescribed area are subject to the same suspicion. It is to determine exactly such questions that this government understands the right of visit and search to have been recognized." The note declares that the United States is open to none of the criticisms of unneutral action cited by the German memorandum; that we have not acquiesced in belligerent measures to restrain neutral trade but have taken the position of holding belligerents responsible in the proper way for any

Bemard Partridge

AS BETWEEN FRIENDS BRITISH LION: "Please don't look at me like that, Sam. You're not the eagle I'm up against." -London Punch

effects on American shipping which accepted principles of international law do not justify; that we are free with a clear conscience to take the stand we do. The danger in the situation is pointedly stated: "If the commanders of German vessels of war should act upon the presumption that the flag of the United States was not being used in good faith and should destroy on the high seas an American vessel or the lives of American citizens, it would be difficult for the government of the United States to view the fact in any other light than as an indefensible violation of neutral rights, which it would be very hard, indeed, to reconcile with the friendly relations now happily subsisting between the two governments." If such a deplorable situation should arise what would we do? The note says, "the Imperial German government can readily appreciate that the government of the United States would be constrained to hold the imperial government of Germany to a strict accountability for such acts of their naval authorities, and to take any steps it might be necessary to take to safeguard American lives and property and to secure. to American citizens the full enjoyment of their acknowledged rights of the high seas." But confident hope and expectation are expressed that Germany will assure Americans against molestation by naval forces otherwise than by visit and search, even in the proposed war zone.