« AnteriorContinuar »
OLD SHIP SUBSIDY
1914, rate, and the ocean freight charges are the same as conclusive policy which redounds little to the credit of for December, 1914, the American farmers and business those who devised it, and which cannot appeal to real men will pay to ship-owners, principally foreign, increased advocates of an American merchant marine." Such freight charges above the normal rates of $216,221,400, or
is the case for the measure as it has appeared in the more than five times the $40,000,000 which the Government
decidedly meager discussion before the public. "Seldom proposes by the shipping bill to put into American ships for the protection of our foreign commerce.”
can so big a measure have been shrouded in such ob
scurity,” remarks the N. Y. Evening Post. Reports from federal officials at different shipping ports were submitted to the Senate showing congestion
Existence of a Ship at the docks. In Norfolk cotton had accumulated to
Famine Is Denied. the amount of five and a half million dollars' worth, ACCORDING to the advices which the paper just
quoted had from Washington, the President and awaiting shipment. In Baltimore grain had so accumulated that the railway's were refusing to accept any
his advisers were entirely surprised at the opposition more for transportation to that port. A similar condi
that has arisen. They expected the approval of the tion was reported for New York. This congestion
country and least of all did they expect a bolt in the
Democratic ranks. If that was the view held, their was reported also in the cases of tobacco, lumber, flour, cotton-seed, oil and other commodities. Considering
sagacity was very much at fault. Even the famine in these facts, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch speaks of the
ships, upon which the argument for the bill rests, is ship-purchase bill as "a measure vital to the public wel
vigorously disputed. The excess of exports over imfare," and the Lewiston Evening Journal charges the
ports for the last three months, so the N. Y. Times
points out, has been at the rate of $1,375,000,000 a year. opponents of the bill with being defenders of the British
It is not shipping, we are assured, that is wanting. The shipping monopoly. "Every ship subsidist,” according to the Louisville Evening Post, "has united to obstruct
trouble is in the lack of distribution after the goods are
shipped. In England, for instance, the railways are this measure of relief," and it denounces the seven Democratic Senators who opposed it as engaged in "a
monopolized for military purposes and a number of most sinister alliance under Penrose and Lodge and
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
-Carter in N. Y. Sun
ship Owners' Association, the chief cause for the con Indianapolis News, an independent paper usually found gestion in British ports. The British Board of Trade in support of the President, calls the bill an "utterly has made a special inquiry into the situation and vicious piece of legislation" and regrets the tendency enumerates six reasons for the delays, not one of which of the President “to close his eyes to obvious facts and refers to a lack of ships. The N. Y. Chamber of to deceive himself into believing that things exist when, Commerce made an inquiry in this city and as a re as a matter of fact, they do not exist”—the need for sult denies point-blank that there is any ship famine. this bill being, in its judgment, one of the things that “The shipping bill,” says the Springfield Republican, do not exist. The alleged disposition of Mr. Wilson which is a great deal of a Wilson paper, “if properly to settle his own lines of policy without consultation shaped as an emergency measure, has intrinsic merit, is again being made the theme of remark. "If the and the opposition to it has not been based on grounds President would play with his team now and then," that could command unqualified approval. But the writes J. C. Hemphill, formerly editor of the Charlestime has come to abandon it, in the interest of the ton News and Courier and later of the Richmond higher policies of the nation for which the administra- Times-Dispatch, in the Philadelphia Ledger, "instead tion will be held responsible."
of requiring the team to play with him always, there
would be less friction and discontent among many of Papers Friendly to Wilson Oppose
his ardent supporters in Congress." The N. Y. the Ship-Purchase Bill.
Tribune attributes the success of the filibuster in the MANY papers, in fact
, that are ordinarily defenders of the administration, have been emphatic in Senate to the latent opposition of the Democrats to the opposition to the ship-purchase bill. The N. Y. Even President's methods and it says with some jubilation: ing Post has been especially severe in its denunciation of the bill as an economic blunder and a peril to our
“He has staked and wrecked his prestige as a party leader international relations. The N. Y. Journal of Com
on a false issue, and is now astounded to find the country merce calls the bill “a colossal political blunder," which
parting company with him and his followers in Congress
getting rebellious and sulky. It looks now as if the shipwill prove politically fatal if the bill is passed. Ever
purchase bill is going to be the greatest failure on the adsince the President made his Indianapolis speech re
ministration's legislative program. The fiasco he has made ferring to team-work, says the Washington Herald, he
with it ought to put an end to Mr. Wilson's activities as has been doing the team-work by himself. "He has
an initiator and overseer of legislation. Even a long trodbeen in step, but his party has been out of step.” The den on Congress is ready to revolt at his overlordship."
The territorial integrity of China is plainly to be maintained, even if Japan is obliged to take charge of it.-Seattle PostIntelligencer.
Motto of the submarines : “There's always room at the bottom !”. -Washington Post.
If submarines keep busy we may soon have as big a navy as the rest.- Washington Post.
Another definition of "Ku. Ne possession of deep conscience and high morale.” Ah, y con submarine conscience and a Zeppelin morale.—Cleveland Plain-Dealer.
WILL “WAR ZONE” MEASURES DRAG THE UNITED STATES
INTO THE EUROPEAN CONFLICT? THE HE perils incident to neutral nations from the her power on the seas to intercept neutral ships bring
European war have been perceptibly magnified by ing food to her hungry people, she has a right to use the events of the last month. The Lloyd's rates for her power under the seas-her mines and submarines insurance against war between the United States and to prevent the shipment of food and munitions to Germany have advanced in that time from one guinea British ports, and, inasmuch as the submarine can not to twenty guineas. The vast military vortex that has safely stop and search an armed merchant ship, and already sucked in such a large portion of the civilized can not tell an enemy's ship flying a neutral flag from a and semi-civilized world is now drawing, with clearly truly neutral ship, all neutral ships are warned to keep increasing force, all the neutral nations that have ships out of a clearly defined war zone drawn on the high to sail or commerce to carry. The world faces to-day, seas or take chances of being sunk. Her case also has on the high seas, a far more serious situation than it a damnably logical look to it. The United States and faced a few weeks ago. So far as any one thing can the other neutral nations declare that the nations that be said to have caused this situation, it has been caused inflict war upon one another have no right to extend by the submarine. All international law threatens to that war to the high seas, and that peaceful nations go by the board and all the rights of neutral nations have rights on this earth as well as those that are blowheretofore recognized are in danger of being blown into ing each other into bloody bits. And the neutral nathin air by the changes in naval warfare wrought by tions have logic on their side too. There is logic on the submarines. See the satanic sequence of events all sides, but there seems to be security on no side. Or, that issues : GreaBritain, moved by the submarine peril, at least, there is perceptibly less of it than there was proceeds to arm her merchant ships, defends their use four weeks ago and it seems as tho something more of neutral flags in infested seas, and claims the right to than logic is going to be needed to restore it to the world. take neutral ships, on mere suspicion, into her ports for more or less leisurely examination, because the submarine makes such an examination on the high seas no
"A New Zone of Horror.” longer practicable or safe: She has a case that looks TO SAY that the German Admiralty's proclamation of —,
a “war zone” around the British Isles into which of view. Germany says that if Great Britain can use neutrals would sail at their peril, has created a sensa
ITE PROTEST TO GERMANY AND ENGLAND
tion in the press of the United States, is putting it is in duty bound to protest and to make its protest mildly. Official descriptions of this new verboten sign effective.” This paper thinks the chief purpose of the issued by the imperial government seemed but to ag German declaration is “to demonstrate that two can gravate the sensation.
The Rochester Post-Express play at the same game of trying to starve out the speaks of “Hot-Air Blockades." The Chicago Tribune enemy.” The Wall Street Journal suggests that “if sees an attempt at practical blockade by intimidation. Germany would come out frankly and announce that The proposed use of fear gives currency to the term she proposed to use every means, regardless of human"psychological blockade."
The Philadelphia Ledger ity, and ask no favors, the position taken, even if unand many other journals call it a "paper blockade" moral, would at least be logical. But the demand that which international law does not recognize. The N. Y. all the world, belligerents and neutrals as well, shall ob- . Tribune describes it as a “Threat of Lynch Law Against serve the strictest Queensberry rules, while she hits beNeutral Shipping.” The N. Y. Evening Sun charac low the belt, or even hits the referee, is the veriest terizes it as "A New Zone of Horror.' The N. Y. squealing." On the other hand, the St. Louis Star inEvening Post refuses to get excited over the order on sists that England "has undermined, almost destroyed, the ground that it is three-quarters bluff, and it says: the rights of neutrals in commerce with belligerents, "That a few roving submarines can destroy the sea
and that this action is now about to react upon her own power of a country that itself has twice as many sub head.” marines as the German navy possesses it is preposterous to imagine.” None the less so many "inconceivable”
New Submarines and things have been happening every week of the war that
Blockade Doctrines. the Charleston News and Courier sees only one safe- THIS reaction argument the Star develops as follows: guard against our embroilment in the contest, namely
The new factor of submarines has prevented the that neither side is seeking new enemies. The N. Y. recognized type of blockade of German ports, so EngWorld declares that “the Berlin proclamation makes
land has extended the blockade to the open sea by her neutrality almost as hazardous as belligerency, and that
navy. Then she extended “international law” to include is a doctrine that neither this country nor any other
cargoes of conditional contraband not destined directly neutral nation can accept."
for German troops. Neutrals submitted under protest.
Berlin's decree, by which the government takes over Neutral Protest to Both
breadstuffs of the empire, was followed by England's Belligerents.
making food for Germany absolute contraband, whether to
under neutral flags or not. Germany has equal right the lead of the United States in its double protest. with Great Britain to extend its blockade to the high Almost unanimously, the newsrs in this country seas by the navy it possesses. The difference is, Enginsist that as a self-resp wral nation we could
land has the power to do it with surface-sailing cruisers do no less than vigorousty protest against that part of and battle-ships, which can capture ships and send them the new declaration of German policy affecting neutrals. into port with prize crews. Germany cannot do this, The protest made by our government prior to the date but she can sink them with her submarines. Britain fixed for making the war zone effective has been over first broke away from formerly accepted practices, and whelmingly approved by the press, irrespective of party is estopped from insisting that Germany be confined to affiliations. The protest made to Great Britain at the the limits established for her own purposes. As a matsame time regarding her alleged misuse of our flag has ter of fact, the Star adds, “international law and the also been heartily commended. “The protest to Ger rights of neutrals have been completely disrupted, by many is sharper than that to Great Britain,” observes
Germany first on land and by England first on the water. the Boston Transcript, “but Germany's offense is International law, after all, is only the rights and privgreater.”
ileges nations have been willing to maintain. Belliger“To neither Germany's assertion of a blockade that is
ents have, in the past, been compelled to respect neutral invisible until it comes up from the depths of the sea, nor
rights at sea because neutrals were willing to go to war that the destruction of a neutral ship under these circum
to assert them.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reminds stances would be only a regrettable accident, can the United us that this country stands now, as it has stood all the States assent, and it now dissents so emphatically and so way through, on the recognized doctrines of internaclearly that if the relations of the two countries become tional law, recognized as fully by English authorities strained, Germany alone will be responsible for the tension.
as by our own. But, says the Hartford Timies, in view Americans should all stand behind the Administration in
of the war conditions which so flatly contradict all that solid support and in hopeful expectation that its firmness
is the foundation of civilization-might the only law will not evaporate as it did in Mexico."
and anything permissible which cannot be prevented by
greater might-"unless the people involved are polite to Where Neutrals Come in on a Starvation Policy.
us, what are we going to do about it?” This question WHILE the quoting of international law” continues becomes still more pertinent on reading Germany's
to be the practice of the belligerents, it is remark reply to our protest, described by the headliners as able how many things appear to be invented or em "friendly but firm." It is polite in tone, but it distinctly ployed in actual warfare to which, as the Washington refuses to make any concession from the policy laid Post observes, "international law does not apply.” down. Neutral ships must keep out of the new war Starvation of the enemy, for instance. Whether a zone or take chances of destruction by mines or substarvation policy adopted by either Great Britain or marines. Germany disclaims all responsibility for such Germany is right or wrong does not concern the United "accidents.” The comment elicited in American papers States, according to the Post; but "if it entails unlawful by this reply corresponds closely to that quoted above disruption of American commerce, the United States elicited by the original proclamation.
-Columbus Evening Dispatch (wwroom
service. She has declared the entire North Sea to be
an area of war, impeding the passage of neutral shipCAREFUL NAVIGATIOX REQUIRED TO AVOID TROUBLE ping and virtually effecting an illegal blockade of neutral - McCutcheon in Chicago Tribune
coasts. “All these measures have the obvious purpose,
through the illegal paralyzation of legitimate neutral The Sensational German
“War Zone” Proclama commerce, not only to strike at the German military
tion and Memoranda. strength but also as the economic life of Germany, and, UCCESS in war depends so much on surprises that
finally, through staivation ceom the entire population history is made very rapidly. Now and then one
of Germany to destruction. must think back to what produced a given state of mind at a particular crisis. Iardly had the trouble
Criticism and Appeal some cargo of difficulties over British seizures of ships
to Neutrals. been steered into diplomatic channels (described in
her man document asserts that the neutral powers have surprise proclamation. It was issued February + by the generally acquiesced in the steps taken by the British German Idmiralty, and read:
government; that aid even has been given by export and
transit embargoes which have hindered transit of wares “The waters around Great Britain, including the whole for peaceful purposes to Germany. Neutrals have seemof the English Channel, are declared hereby to be included
ingly been satisfied with theoretical protests when Great within the zone of war, and after the 18th inst. all eneiny
Britain pleads her vital interests for violations of inmerchant vessels encountered in these waters will be de
ternational law; therefore, in fact, neutrals “accept the stroyed, even if it may not be possible always to save their crew's and passengers.
vital interests of belligerents as sufficient excuse for "Il'ithin this war zone neutral vessels are exposed to
every method of warfare.” So “Germany must now danger since, in view of the misuse of the neutral flags appeal to these same vital interests, to its regret," being ordered by the government of Great Britain on the 31st forced to military measures of retaliation against Britultimo and of the hazards of naval warfare, neutral vessels islı procedure. Just as Great Britain designated the cannot always be prevented from suffering from the attacks North Sea a war area, so does Germany declare the war intended for enemy ships.
area around Great Britain. The warning of the Admi“The routes of navigation around the north of the Shet
ralty proclamation is amplified, in order that there may land Islands in the eastern part of the North Sea and in a
be no mistake about it, thus : strip thirty miles wide along the Dutch coast are not open to the danger zone."
“Germany will endeavor to destroy every enemy merThis mercantile warfare, it is explained by a German chant ship that is found in this area of war, without its government memorandum, is retaliation against a mer
always being possible to avert the peril that thus threatens cantile warfare which has been carried on by Great
persons and cargoes. Britain against Germany "in a way that defies all the
"Neutrals are therefore warned against further intrustprinciples of international law.” Britain is definitely
ing crews, passengers, and wares to such ships. Their at
tention is also called to the fact that it is advisable for their accused of arbitrary listing of contraband, abolishing ships to avoid entering this area, for even tho the German the distinction between absolute and relative contra
naval forces have instructions to avoid violence to neutral band, seizing non-contraband German property on neu ships, in so far as they are recognizable, in view of the tral ships and impressing Germans liable for military misuse of neutral flags ordered by the British government
-N. Y. World
AS BETWEEN FRIENDS and the contingencies of naval warfare, their becoming British Lion: “Please don't look at me like that, Sam. You're not the victims of torpedoes directed against enemy ships cannot
eagle I'm up against.'
- London Punch always be averted. ...
"It is to be expected that the neutral powers will show effects on American shipping which accepted principles no less consideration for the vital interests of Germany
of international law do not justify; that we are free than for those of England, and will aid in keeping their
with a clear conscience to take the stand we do. The citizens and the property of the latter from this area. This is the more to be expected as it must be to the interests
danger in the situation is pointedly stated : "If the comof the neutral powers to see this destructive war end as
manders of German vessels of war should act upon the soon as possible."
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 citiWhat Would Happen if an Amer
zens, it would be difficult for the government of the ican Ship Were Destroyed? ON NE week before the effective date of the proclama
United States to view the fact in any other light than tion, our State Department cautioned Germany re
as an indefensible violation of neutral rights, which it garding the very serious possibilities of the contem
would be very hard, indeed, to reconcile with the friendplated course of action, and at the same time cautioned
ly relations now happily subsisting between the two Great Britain regarding the use of the flag of a neutra?
governments.” If such a deplorable situation should
arise what would we do? The note says, "the Imperial power. The sole right of a belligerent, says the note to Germany, in dealing with neutral vessels on the high
German government can readily appreciate that the govseas, is limited to visit and search, barring an effective
ernment of the United States would be constrained to blockade. "To declare or exercize a right to attack and
hold the imperial government of Germany to a strict destroy any vessel entering a prescribed area of the high accountability for such acts of their naval authorities, seas without first certainly determining its belligerent
and to take any steps it might be necessary to take to nationality and the contraband character of its cargo
safeguard American lives and property and to secure would be an act so unprecedented in naval war
to American citizens the full enjoyment of their acfare that this Government is reluctant to believe knowledged rights of the high seas." Bụt confident hope that the Imperial Government of Germany in this
and expectation are expressed that Germany will assure case contemplates it as possible.” And further: "The Imericans against molestation by naval forces othersuspicion that enemy ships are using neutral flags im
wise than by visit and search, even in the proposed properly can create no just presumption that all ships traversing a prescribed area are subject to the same
British Use of the Neutral suspicion. It is to determine exactly such questions that
Stars and Stripes. this government understands the right of visit and WHEN the British ocean greyhound, the Lusitania,
sailed into her home harbor flying the American that the United States is open to none of the criticisms flag instead of the flag of "the mistress of the seas, of unneutral action cited by the German memorandum; the news was startling not merely to neutrals. From that we have not acquiesced in belligerent measures to London comment, the N. Y. Sun judged that the inrestrain neutral trade but have taken the position of cident was not altogether agreeable to Englishmen; holding belligerents responsible in the proper way for any “they do not seem to be proud of it.” But that there is