[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR, — The article in your
issue of 28rd ultimo entitled " The Freedom of the Seas," and the letter from Mr. R. S. Hudson, M.P., on the same subject last week, prompt, but do not satisfy, the natural inquiry of the ordinary citizen, not con- versant with the technicalities of the question, as to what is
the correct meaning of the expression and whether those who advocate the adoption of the principle mean the same thing.
It is quite evident that whatever President Wilson intended when he used the expression, he did not mean what the Germans meant.
Speaking in Berlin in 1917, Count Reventlow said :-
"What do we Germans understand by freedom of the seas ? Of course, we do not mean by it that free use of the sea which is the common privilege of all nations in time of peace, the right to the open highways of international trade. That, sort of freedom we had before the War. What we understand to-day by this doctrine is that Germany should possess such maritime territories, and such naval bases, that at the outbreak of a war we should bo able, with our navy ready, reasonably to guarantee ourselves the command of the seas. We want such a jumping-off place for our navy as would give us a fair chance of dominating the seas, and of being free of the seas during a war."
I am not the only constant reader of your paper who com- menced reading your article in the hope that it would contain a clear definition of what is comprised in the principle and some explanation of the exact points in difference between this country and the United States on the subject, but whilst fully endorsing your hopes as regards the Kellogg Pact, one could not refrain from a feeling of disappointment at being left in the dark as regards what the freedom of the seas really means.
A concise and explicit definition of the expression is a necessary preliminary step to a consideration of the question to enable us to arrive at a mature judgment as to whether there is anything in the principle which is contrary to what we regard as essential for our national safety. As was stated in an article on " The Declaration of London " in the Spectator on March 11th, 1911 :--" The safety or convenience of neutrals can be bought at much too high a price," and whilst applauding the pure and lofty sentiments expressed by Mr. Hoover in his inaugural address at Washington yesterday, let us not forget his words :—" Peace can be contributed to by respect for our ability in defence."
As regards Mr. Hudson's letter, is he correct in stating? :-
" The United States, I believe, has never denied the right of one belligerent to hold up, at sea, contraband consigned directly to the ports of_the other_belligerent. All she objects to is our extension of her own Civil War doctrine of ' continuous voyage' to cover her general trade with neutrals and her trade in non-contraband with a belligerent."
Did this country stop her " general trade with neutrals," and does the United States contend that she is entitled to continue " her trade in non-contraband with a belligerent," notwithstanding an effective blockade having been established, as was the position of Germany in the late war ?
Is it not a fact that before the War there was unanimity between this country and the United States over the questions of continuous voyage and blockade, based very largely on their own conceptions and actions during their Civil War ? It is one of the frailties of human nature that men's attitude to a question may change according to how their interests may be affected owing to a change in their circumstances, and is it we or the United States who have changed according to whether these questions are viewed from the standpoint of belligerent or neutral ?
Failing the Kellogg Pact, it is not a hopeful outlook. As you remark :—" the gravity of the situation lies not merely in the contemplation of a potential clash between the two Anglo-Saxon navies, but in the fact that feeling is persistently embittered and all hope of the limitation of armaments dispelled as long as opposing views are held in Whitehall and in Washington on this vital issue."
What is the issue and what are those opposing views ? I think that the ordinary citizen desires more light and guidance and would welcome the expression of reliable and impartial views on the subject such as you are well qualified
to give.—I am, Sir, &c., HOWARD B. Hums.
" Rockchff," Kilmacolm, Renfrervshire. ,
Previous page
