prevent its misuse. The illustrious men who have from time to time advocated the immunity of private property at sea carry weight— deservedly so: but their lives were devoted to the study of the principles of law and politics rather than to the hard facts of war. It is right therefore to cite the opinion of a student of war, and no name stands higher in that branch of historical research and military and economic science than that of the late Admiral Mahan. In his Essay on the Possibilities of an Anglo-American Reunion he wrote as follows:

In the same way it may be asserted quite confidently that the concession of immunity to what is unthinkingly called the private property of an enemy on the sea will never be conceded by a nation or alliance confident in its own sea power. It has been the dream of the weaker sea belligerents in all ages; and their arguments for it, at the first glance plausible, are very proper to urge from their point of view. That arch robber, the first Napoleon, who so remorselessly and exhaustively carried the principle of war sustaining war to its utmost logical sequence, and even in peace scrupled not to quarter his armies on subject countries, maintaining them on what after all was private property of foreigners, even he waxes quite eloquent and superficially most convincing as he compares the seizure of goods at sea, so fatal to his Empire, to the seizure of a wagon travelling on a country road.

Now private property borne upon the seas is engaged in promoting, in the most vital manner, the strength and resources of the nation by which it is handled. When that nation becomes belligerent the private property, so called, borne upon the seas is sustaining the well-being and endurance of the nation at war and consequently is injuring the opponent to an extent exceeding all other sources of national power.

Blockade, such as that enforced by the United States Navy during the Civil War, is evidently only a special phase of commerce destroying; yet how immense-nay decisive-its results!

It is only when effort is frittered away in the feeble dissemination of the guerre de course instead of being concentrated in a great combination to control the sea that commerce destroying justly incurs the reproach of misdirected effort.

How do these words, written in 1894, read today? Napoleon no longer lives-but does the Power that clamors for the freedom of the

seas respect private property on land? Is the control of commerce by the use of sea power an effective weapon, or is it not? Is the guerre de course any more worthy of respect than it was when Admiral Mahan correctly characterized it?

We see, therefore, that sea power is an effective weapon in war, and that whilst the old right of a belligerent to weaken and exhaust his enemy is as legitimate as ever, the manner of the exercise of that right calls for modification. Everything that man produces can be utilized by science for purposes of war, and even a baby's feeding bottle can be converted into a dangerous bomb. Everything therefore is now either contraband or conditional contraband. This creates an impossible condition for neutrals, and when facts or the changes caused by human progress render the old laws or the old rules intolerable, common sense calls for their amendment, but the Anglo-Saxon sense of justice calls also for a fair compromise between conflicting claims. It is impossible to define contraband when everything is contraband, but it is easy to distinguish between absolute contraband, that is to say, war material—and articles which have a double use. A fifteen inch howitzer is not an article used in a citizen's household, nor is a machine gun, and there is no difficulty in distinguishing articles which are of military use only: but it is the fact that everything else has both a military and a civil use. To confiscate all articles of conditional contraband would be an intolerable act of robbery and injustice to neutrals. But the right of a belligerent to intercept supplies and succors to his enemy remains. A fair compromise has been found in the past between these two conflicting rights by the system of preemption, or purchase. By the control of commerce, instead of the confiscation of commerce. There is no reason in justice why a belligerent should not intercept supplies going to his enemy provided he pays for them, if they are neutral property, and have a double use. War material always has been liable to confiscation, and there is no reason why it should not remain so liable.

But this rule has a logical consequence. If private property on board ship is exempt from confiscation the ship that carries that property must be exempt from destruction. The iniquitous destruction of peaceable merchant ships during the recent war has horrified and

disgusted humanity. It would be easy to show that it has no legal justification, but it would be a waste of words to do so. For in this matter, we are dealing with a question which transcends the logic or the rules of jurists. It affects all humanity, and whatever rules may be framed for the future guidance of belligerents it is certain that suffering humanity will see to it that the destruction of merchant ships must be prohibited, and the prohibition must be made effective without any exception of any kind whatsoever. A merchant ship taken as prize, must be brought into port and not destroyed.

But this rule would admittedly be to the advantage of the strongest naval power. So it is but just that some concession should be made to the weaker naval powers. During the eighteenth century the right of asylum, or the right to take prizes into neutral ports, was frequently stipulated in treaties not limited to America, but treaties made by European powers including England. The concession of the right of asylum might be and is recommended as a compensation for the limited, and exceptional right of destruction such as it exists in International Law today.

But the prohibition of the right to destroy involves the abandonment of the right to arm. In this, as in every war, it has been proved that if an orgie of barbarism is to be avoided it is all important that there shall be a clear distinction between combatants and noncombatants-and a noncombatant should not be armed. It is no doubt the legal right of a noncombatant merchant vessel to arm and to fight in self-defense. But if the noncombatant is to be immune and to enjoy the rights of a noncombatant she must be a noncombatant. From the moment that the law protects the immunity of noncombatants, the right to arm, and the right to resist visit and search cease to have justification. It is not always possible to define self-defense. If two men meet, each carrying pistols, each entitled to shoot, it is hard to say that the man who fires first does not act in self-defense. The frontier between offense and defense is an indeterminate frontier, and it is but just that if a merchant ship should be exempt from all danger she should cease to be a danger to the vessel exercising the right of visit and search.

Here, then, if we are to examine history and the experience of

today, lies the path of progress. Rightly regarded, the proposals now submitted are a continuation of the path trodden in the past. If adopted, they will lead the way to a modification of the hardships and horrors of war, and will serve that purpose until wars shall cease and the world attains the blessing of a rule of universal law and universal peace.

GRAHAM BOWER.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

PEACE CONFERENCE DELEGATES AT PARIS

UNITED STATES: President Woodrow Wilson, Honorable Robert Lansing, Secretary of State; Honorable Henry White, Honorable Edward M. House, General Tasker H. Bliss.

BRITISH EMPIRE: Right Honorable D. Lloyd George, M.P., Premier; Right Honorable A. J. Balfour, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; Right Honorable A. Bonar Law, M.P., Lord Privy Seal and Leader of House of Commons; Right Honorable G. N. Barnes, Minister without Portfolio; Right Honorable Sir W. F. Lloyd, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of Newfoundland.

BRITISH EMPIRE. Dominions and Colonies:

CANADA: Right Honorable Sir G. E. Foster, G.C.M.G., Minister of Trade and Commerce; Honorable A. L. Sifton, Minister of Customs.

AUSTRALIA: Right Honorable W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister; Right Honorable Sir Joseph Cook, G.C.M.G., Minister for Navy.

SOUTH AFRICA: Right Honorable Louis Botha, Prime Minister; Lieutenant General Right Honorable J. C. Smuts. NEW ZEALAND: S. F. Massey, Prime Minister.

INDIA: His Highness Sir Ganga Singh, etc., Maharaja of Bikaner; Honorable Lord Sinha, Undersecretary of State, representing the Secretary of State for India.

FRANCE: M. G. Clemenceau, President of the Council, Minister of War; M. Pichon, Minister for Foreign Affairs; M. L. L. Klotz, Minister of Finance; M. Andre Tardieu, Commissioner General for French-American War Affairs; M. Jules Cambon, Ambassador of

France.

ITALY: M. Orlando, Prime Minister; Baron Sonnino, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Marquis Salvago Raggi; M. Antonio Salandra, M. Salvatore Barzilai.