Overland trade with neutrals cannot be stopped by the belligerents, but a large share of international trade especiallly the trade in foodstuffs and raw materials-is oversea trade, which can be cut off by them.

Outside the three-mile limit the sea is a neutral area, open to all nations alike in time of peace. In war time the belligerents have assumed the right to seize all ships belonging to the enemy; they have the right to stop and search neutral vessels; they confiscate goods they consider contraband, even if they belong to neutrals; they have the right to close the enemies' ports against all trade by means of the "blockade."

England's Sea Policy

The strongest advocate of these rights in the past was "free trade" England. Being an island, she was not compelled to spend much money on land defense; she could afford to build the biggest navy on earth. She controlled most points of vantage on the trade routes of the world. These combined advantages enabled her to intercept all direct oversea trade of her enemies at strategical points like Gibraltar or Kirkwall. As long as her communications could not be interfered with in straits controlled by her enemies, or as long as her naval supremacy was unchallenged, a predatory state. of international maritime law suited her convenience.

As her population increased she became more dependent on foreign food supply. Her supremacy at sea was not so unchallenged as before. Her island situation was no longer safe, for modern speed shortened distances and modern transporta

tion made an invasion less difficult. On the other hand, the great de velopment in railroad communications made continental countries less dependent on sea-borne trade; they could get oversea supplies by indirect imports from neighboring countries. The British people had to be protected against starvation in case of failure of the British navy; while the navy wanted to maintain her right to destroy the enemies' trade. England did not advocate the freedom of the seas, but she insisted on the freedom from seizure of foodstuffs and raw materials. She insisted in 1885 and again in the Russian-Japanese war that "foodstuffs with a hostile destination can be considered contraband of war only if they are supplies for the enemies' forces. It is not sufficient that they are capable of being so used; it must be shown that it was in fact their destination at the time of seizure."

These views were shared by the leading sea powers. They made a nation's starvation in time of war enjoy free trade in time of peace, as nearly impossible. England could her food supply was guaranteed by neutral shipping in time of war, even if British naval supremacy failed.

Declaration of London

To bring about complete uniformity in international law relative to naval warfare, England invited the powers (February 27, 1908) to a conference, which elaborated the socalled Declaration of London, (February 26, 1909). This declaration is a codification of the existing law; it does not contain any new law. It provided that foodstuffs were "con

ditional contraband" and as such liable to seizure only if destined for the enemys' forces; most raw materials, cotton, wood, ores, oil, etc., were on the free list, and not subject to seizure "as they may not be declared contraband of war." It provided that a blockade "must not be directed against a neutral port in spite of the importance to a belligerent of the part played by that neutral port in supplying its adversary." Goods documented for a neutral port which are classified as conditional contraband cannot be confiscated; "no examination will be made as to whether they are to be forwarded to the enemy by sea or land from that neutral port."

Indirect trading via neutral ports was to be free, with the exception of absolute contraband. The Declaration of London was the Magna Charta of free trade in time of war. Hardly a fortnight after the outbreak of the present war, England destroyed this instrument which was to be the safe foundation for the development of free trade across the

seas.

England's alliance with France, Russia and Japan prevented Germany from cutting England's oversea connections. England can do at present without the protection of the Declaration of London, though she was reluctant to discard it on account of its possible use in future.

She put a stop to direct oversea trading with Germany in foodstuffs, by means of neutral boats, by making them liable to seizure if addressed "to an agent of the enemy state, or to or for a merchant or other person under the control of the authorities of the enemy state." All persons in Germany with the exception of the foreign diplomats

are under the control of the German government. She prevented indirect trading via Holland or Denmark by making neutral cargo on a neutral ship bound for a neutral port liable to seizure, if there was a suspicion of their reaching the enemy. When it could be proved that the enemy drew supplies from a neutral country (for example, from Holland), "a neutral vessel which is carrying conditional contraband to at port in that country shall not be immune from capture." She declared articles like wool, which were on the free list, contraband, and practically wiped out the distinction between absolute and conditional contraband.

Lastly, she closed the entrance gates to Germany to all neutral shipping and to all free neutral goods directly or indirectly destined for Germany. She did not declare a blockade, for a blockade cannot be made effective as long as the allies do not control the Baltic; it is inadmissible under these circumstances; she merely assumed a control of the mouth of the North sea in contradiction to all international law.

Supposed Power of Neutrals

Free traders always have acknowledged that belligerents might try to break the existing rules of international law. In that case, they argued, the neutrals would protect their own commercial right and with it the principle of international trade by insisting on the maintenance of existing law. They would see that foodstuffs and raw materials would reach the belligerents by sea in neutral boats, as long as there was not an effective blockade; and by land via neighboring countries, if such a blockade was declared. It seemed to them quite safe to rely

upon foreign supplies in time of peace if they were sure to go on during war. They have been very much mistaken.

The smaller neutral states, like Scandinavia and Holland, are dependent on the import of foudstuffs and raw materials for the use of their own people. Great Britain stopped their supplies from neutral countries until they levied an embargo on exports to Germany. They had a perfect right to do what they liked with neutral imports; but they had to choose between insistence on their rights, followed by starvation, and a sacrifice of international law. Of course, they chose the latter.

The only country strong enough to vindicate the rights of neutrals

RE we using our undoubted dominion of the sea to the, utmost? We are not! Why? Because we have a lawyer Government which, apparently, does not know its own mind for five minutes together.

Ah, God, for a man with heart, head, hand,
Like some of the simple great ones gone
For ever and ever by,

One still, strong man in a blatant land
Whatever they call him, what care 1,
Aristrocrat, democrat, autocrat-one
Who can rale and dare not lie.

We hope we trust-that our military War Minister is such a one. But as the Sea Service (mercantile as well as naval) bas ruled events from the very beginning, how is it that we have no Daval War Minister? How is it that this civilian Government of ours cannot, apparently, face the conditions under which this war must be conducted if we would win? "American interests"

forsooth! Why! if we rigidly enforced a blockade and agreed to pay for any loss in "interests" and could by this shorten the. war by one single month, it would save us money. We are told that we are spending £5,000,000 a day, that is £150,000,000 month; would not such a sum pay for every interest that suffered by a rigid blockade? Of course, it would! and there would be a month's less loss of life. Yet this Government continues to write letters to the American Government. Was it not an American who said, "The pen is mightier than the sword?"

was the United States. They were the great exporters of foodstuffs, raw material and manufactures, upon whose good will the allies depended. They have been the traditional champions of the free sea. The United States government has been unable to safeguard the rights of neutrals and the unhampered trade in peaceful goods. They insisted successfully on the exercise of the contested right of American citizens to travel in a zone of war on armed belligerent vessels carrying the worst sort of contrabandexplosives; they were unable to enforce the uncontested right of American citizens in sending foodstuffs to the civil population of the central powers.

No doubt, for the getting of dollars; yet unless we are careful. the "pen" may undo us. What are marine laws to ns Why write a mass of verbiage relating to seizures of vessels and the material loss sustained? America is piling up her heap of dollars, growing enorme asly rich upon this European war, and a very large proportion of these American business men who are erying out are Germans, or of German parentage. President Wilson is a mere weakling; bad there been a man like Abraham Lincoln at the head of that nation, we should have had America's help instead of her hindrance long since.

America says that she claims that her non-contraband trade with Germany is exempt from British interference. Away with such a claim American experta know perfectly well how things are. They know that never has there been such a war as this. They know that to lay down rules is merely to hamper us, and: we sincerely trust that in this life and death struggle our Civil Government may even yet be bold enough to take a strong ling without hesitation and small-mindedness. Yet where is our naval War Minister?.

Let all neutrals be plainly told that we shall do anything wo choose in the effort to cripple the enemy. At present we are playing with this matter, and our fleet is-s great part of itidle. But in doing this we must be careful that no steps are taken except for purposes of war. We must see that no complaint can be laid against us that we are enforcing a blockade in the interests of British trade. Aside from this let us enforce a stern blockade on every neutral, and listen to no protests.

We command the rea, and that command will in the end decide the issue whatever setbacks are before us, why then waste such a war as this neutrals cannot reasonably expect to go about. that power by trifling in the interests of "eatral trade. With their business without interference, they may be thankful that, ferences, they are heaping up riches. they are spared the burden of war and that, in spite of inter

Constantinople. Suppose that they get there, can they retain Just now the two Central-Empires are pressing on towards their conquests? Suppose that Germany overruna Asia Minor, communication by sea, and this she cannot do. Can she remain there? Not unless she can gain command of Sea power then, bappens on land. British sea power, will, in the end, decide the war whatever Where, then, is our naval War Minister 7 Tax EDITOR.

Principles of Free Trade

Sacrificed

What was at stake was not a mere commercial advantage, which can be easily adjusted by compensation; what was really sacrificed was the principle of free trade. If the neutrals cannot safeguard the rights of peaceful trading in time of war, belligerents will not respect it when military necessities are in question. And if nations are confronted with the risk of starvation in time of war, because they relied on foreign supplies in time of peace, they may shape their commercial policy in future in such a way as to be fairly self-supporting. The experience of the central powers during the war has shown that this can be accomplished in a considerable way at a very heavy economic sacrifice. As

security is more important than wealth, nations will be willing to bring such sacrifice. It cannot be done without very heavy tariffs All over the world there is a revival of the protectionist spirit. The plans for a customs union of central Europe and the economic proposals of the allies illustrate that quite as clearly as the new American dumping legislation. It owes its strength to the breakdown of that right of peaceful trading in time of war which the declaration of London as well as the existing customary international law seemed to have secured forever for mankind. It was destroyed by "free trade" England. And America, the traditional champion of the free seas, has so far been unable to re-establish it.-Sept. 11, 1916.

(From New York Evening Post.)

RESCIND THE SUSPENSION OF PARCEL POST TO GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

Every rule of fairness, every instinct of humanity, presses hard upon the national administration at Washington to rescind its recent order suspending the parcel post service to Germany and Austria.

During the week that has elapsed since the suspension was announced, hundreds of protesting letters have reached President Wilson and Postmaster-General Burleson, entreating them to insist that the steamship companies carry out their contract with our government to accept and deliver its mails without discrimination as to destination or character.

It should not be possible for any private corporation to nullify part of its undertaking with our government on the ground that another nation-in this case, England-will harass its ships if it lives up to its full agreement. It should not be possible for any foreign government to issue instructions to its sea fleet to interrupt the United States mail, on any pretext, without vigorous protest from Washington and firm insistence upon the prompt withdrawal of such an order.

President Wilson took a splendid position as the "spokesman of humanity" in the Lusitania tragedy and brought Germany to realize

that, whatever her necessities, she could not sacrifice the lives of Americans to accomplish her purpose.

In the more recent cases of the Ancona this government, with the same vigor and determination, has pressed home to Austria our firm

intention not to tolerate such outrages upon our citizens.

The principle of humanity upon which our protest against Germany's submarine campaign was based lies also at the very heart of the question involved in the suspension of the parcel post service to Germany and Austria. It should be understood that our government is not merely abandoning property when it allows this service to be withdrawn. What is property to us is life to the women and children of the two embattled nations thus abruptly cut off from communication with us. The interrupted trade may mean starvation and death to many of them; it certainly means more acute and lasting distress than otherwise they would be called upon to endure. Torpedoing vessels on the high seas when carrying innocent women and children staggers humanity, but is it not equally atrocious to starve women and children in their homes by shutting off the only remaining channel by which they can secure foodstuffs?

At this time of year it is the practice of thousands of our people to send their tributes of love and