LAND AND WATER. 
January 27, 1916. 
the infinitely more drastic measure of blockade. 
If the hanging up of American ships seemed a 
hardship would not the confiscation or destruction 
ol the chartered ships seem intolerable ? As to 
this we have something to guide us in the character 
of the Notes which the United States have 
addressed to the Cierman (iovernment. Omitting 
the case of the William P. Frye, a grain ship 
destroyed by a German cruiser after the cargo had 
been removed, there is not amongst Mr. \\'ilson's 
published notes to Germany a single word 
of jirotest against the destruction — without 
legal trial or any prize court procedure — 
of a single capture made by the Germans 
either by surface ships or by submarines. 
So far as we know the whole of the Washington- 
Berlin correspondence is concerned with the 
inhumanity and injustice only of the German pro- 
ceedings. Indeed, there seems no other inter- 
pretation that can be put upon the third Lusitania 
note, than that Mr. Wilson accepts, as a necessary 
development of modern naval war, that prizes 
should be destroyed on the high seas. He is only 
conceinvxl that if this destruction is carried out by 
subi^iai ines, the safety of the non-combatant 
passengers and crews should be properly secured. 
If then a plausible legal argument can be made 
out for the blockade, it is unlikely that the 
Americans, having waived the right to trial, will 
raise against our proceedings objections they have 
not raised against Germany's. 
IS A LEGAL BLOCKADE POSSIBLE? 
The main question is, can the legality of a 
blockade of Germany be sustained ? The prin- 
ciple of naval law is, that no blockade is valid 
unless it is effective. Those that have advocated 
the blockade of Germany have had to meet this 
objection, " How can you blockade Germany, 
when the w'hole Baltic coast is open to Danish and 
Swedish trade coming from ports East of the 
Sound, and when you have no hold over any 
capture that you allow to enter 'the Sound 
when bound for any neutral port beyond it ? " 
There are two main lines on which these objections 
can be met. 
In the first place, from the date of the third 
Lusitam'a note, when Mr. Wilson gave his sanction 
to the summary destruction of prizes, it became 
obvious that the most powerful of the neutrals 
would oppose no obstacle to our carrying out 
through submarines those privileges of the sea 
that hitherto have been limited to the Power that 
has general command of the sea by surface boats. 
Although Mr. Wilson finally adopted this attitude 
in July last, it was not until October that we 
availed ourselves of the liberty which it mani- 
estly gave us. But since October we have main- 
tained a submarine force in the Baltic, the efficiency 
of which in preventing trade between Sweden, 
l^enmark and Germany, has no doubt varied ; 
but, allowance for all such variations being made, 
it has imposed an obstacle quite as effective as 
that which in pre\-ious cases has been held suffi- 
cient to maintain the legality of the blockading 
operations. 
The second point is this. The Baltic is an 
niland sea which can be approached only through 
narrow and territorial waters. The conditions of 
modern warfare oppose, to the passage of narrow 
waters by a surface fleet considerable enough to 
seize and hold the command of the Baltic, ob- 
stacles of a kind which are insuperable. 
Mines and the employment of torpedoes by 
submarines and destroyers have admittedly intro- 
duced new factors into naval war. These must 
be taken into account in all their bearings. 
Amongst the new effects must be recognised that 
of converting inland waters as the Baltic and 
the Sea of Marmora, into closed seas to surface 
ships. Suppose the United States to be at war 
with say Germany and Japan, and Germany to 
be blockading the Atlantic coast and Japan 
to be blockading the Pacific, and both blockades 
to be generally effective, could it be pretended 
that any court in the world would deny the 
legality of either on the ground that neutral ships 
could communicate freely with Milwaukee 
Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo ? 
Similarly it could not be held that Germany had 
allowed the blockade to become ineffective if it 
permitted British ships to enter the St. Lawrence 
with goods on board whose destination it was 
sworn was wholly neutral. The Baltic is a parallel 
case to the (ircat Lakes. It can then, it would 
seem, be convincingly maintained, that to blockade 
the Sound is to blockade the German coast beyond 
it, and that to permit neutral ships with cargoes 
of a neutral destination to pass the Sound would 
not necessarily invalidate the blockade at all. 
Again, although the blockade can be pro- 
claimed and will be valid, there still remains the 
same problem that faces the allies to-day, namely 
how to deal with neutral ports on both this and 
on the other side of the Sound itself. Frankly 
there is no other way of tackling this problem 
except pushing the doctrine of " continuous 
voyage" to its logical hmit, and rationing the 
neutral countries. 'I he dependence on agreements 
with bodies of* private traders is, on the face of 
it, worthless. There is no other alternative to 
making the business an affair between the 
neutral and belligerent governments. 
IS THERE TO BE A LORD HIGH 
ADMIRAL: 
It goes very much against the grain with me 
to deal contro\crsially with the name of anj' sea- 
man. It is doubly so when that seaman is so old 
a public servant, so widely and so rightly honoured 
in the Navj-, so gratefully and even affectionately 
looked upon by his countrymen. But if Mr. 
Hurd is free to advocate the supercession of 
Mr. Balfour by Lord Fisher, those who disagree are 
compelled to e.xercise an equal frankness in stating 
their case. The situation is altogether too serious 
for false delicacy. Mr. Hurd is conjuring with 
the magic of a great name. His own reputation 
for cool judgment and wide and unusual know- 
ledge of the profession which he interprets so 
clearly, stands very high indeed. And in this 
matter he speaks not only for himself, but for 
a jourral which throughout the war has been 
distinguished by a patriotism as sane as it has 
been ardent. Mr. Hurd's advocacy then is not 
a thing that can be ignored, and it would be no 
comphment to his hero to do so. 
His argument is briefly as follows. The 
fortunes of the Allied cause depend upon the British 
Fleet. The Fleet depends upon the men at White- 
hall. There supreme power is vested in Mr. 
Balfour, and Mr. Balfour knows nothing of sea 
force. He has as counsellors men whose names are 
utterly unknown, and he is not even bound to ac- 
cept their uncon\incing ad\ice. These are not 
