LAND 6? WATER 
November 14, 1918 
abundantly clear that the fleet was not only tingling with 
life and on the tip-toe of expectation- — as indeed it has always 
been — it was now planned for and led with skill and daring" 
that banished into the limbo of forgotten fallacies all the 
quackery about winning the fruits of victory without winning 
a battle that had cramped and shackled us in the early 
days. 
We may regret that all this splendid work, and the magni- 
ficent liberty of spirit engendered by it, has not had its due 
reward in a battle at sea as memorable and final as the 
great battle that had been won on land. But the work has 
not been wasted. The example the British Fleet has set 
has no hiore been thrown away than its actual achievement. 
It has held the sea for four years and four months ; it has 
stifled the enemy's carrying service, controlled, checked, and 
stopped all neutral service to the enemy. It has fought 
ship to ship : it has fought the submarine, and kept its 
ceaseless vigil in every circumstance of trial, anxiety, and 
danger. It has carried two and twenty million fighting men ; 
it has fed a population of one hundred million, and more. 
Its strength was from the first the sole condition of victory. 
What is to the point is that in the whole four years there is 
not one action, even an accidental action, that is to its dis- 
credit. It has fought and beaten enemy ships again and 
again. It has never failed to rescue the enemy when fighting 
was no longer possible to him. Even the officers and crews 
of submarines — for whom it must have been diflicult to pre- 
serve a regard hitherto maintained for a, brave enemy — even 
these have been the objects of its tender chivalry. There is, 
then, no hour of its work that has not had its fruit, no memory 
that is not great and noble. And if the fierce joy of battle 
and the lurid glory of victory have been denied, is it not 
because its enemy was, in the old phrase, just not worthy 
of its steel ? Arthur Pollen. 
The Freedom of the Seas: ByButler Aspinall,K.C. 
THERE seems to be considerable confusion of 
thought and divergence of opinion as to the 
meaning of the words "Freedom of the Seas." 
As peace is now in sight, it would be well 
that as between ourselves, our allies, our 
'^ foes, and all neutral countries, there should be no 
ambiguity as to the Brttish point of view. The matter 
is of cardinal importance to Great Britain and her colonies. 
We live on an island and have large colonial possessions. 
We are a great carrying nation, and maintain a great navy. 
In time of war the free uses of the high sea is necessarily 
interfered with. Our experience of this and all past wars 
tells us this cannot be avoided, but our wish and effort is 
that this interference should be such interference as is con- 
sistent with recognised principles of international law and 
with a humane regard to the lives and property of neutrals 
engaged in using the high sea. 
The Right of Blockade 
Point 2 of Mr. Wilson's " Programme of the World's 
Peace" is as follows: "Absolute freedom of navigation 
upon the seas outside territorial watej^ alike in peace 
and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole 
or in part by international action for the enforcement 
of international covenants." Having regard^to the fact 
that the United States and British navies have been 
working together for'the purpose of destroying enemy craft, 
protecting our transports and commerce, stopping trade in 
contraband, and regulating the use of the high seas by 
neutrals, it is to be assumed that in practice both navies are 
giving effect in the same sense to the use and freedom of ■ 
the seas. By the Declaration of Paris, 1856, the signatory 
Powers, including Great Britain, agreed that the neutral flag 
should cover enemy goods, with the exception of contraband 
of war. The United States of America refused to adhere 
formally to the Declaration of Paris, but in the wars in which 
she has been concerned she has seized contraband and estab- 
lished blockade. There would appear to be no ground for 
thinking that the United States of America is wishful to 
abolish the right to seize contraband or to establish a blockade, 
although it might be contended that the language of Point 2 
of Mr. Wilson's points is wide enough to cover such an inten- 
tion. 
In the early stages of the present war some Americans 
thought that the British Navy was asserting rights to control 
and interfere with the use of the high seas in a manner not 
consistent with international law. It was said that Great 
Britain was not justified in seizing and detaining neutral 
ships bound for neutral ports on the mere suspicion that they 
were Carrying contraband destined for the enemy ; that she 
was not justified in taking or ordering into her ports or 
territorial waters such ships for the purpose of search ; that 
her rights were limited to searching the ships on the high 
seas ; and that if no evidence of guilt was found upon the 
ship herself, the ship and her cargo was entitled to be 
released. A point made on behalf of the American shipper 
was that he could not be held responsible for the ultimate 
destination of the goods after possession had been taken by 
a neutral consignee. In this connection it is to be remembered 
that it was during the American Civil W'ar that her dis- 
tinguished judges and jurists laid down and developed the 
doctrine of continuous voyage. 
A further complaint was that we were treating conditional 
contraband in the same manner as absolute contraband. These 
complaints were mainly directed to the carriage of goods from 
American to Scandinavian and Dutch ports consigned to a 
neutral consignee. At first sight these complaints seem to have 
justification, and certainly called for explanation. In sub- 
stance, the reply of the British Government was this, viz., an 
acquiescence in the view that the interference with neutral 
trade should be as restricted as possible, but an assertion of 
the right to control, and, if need be, stop it in so far as it was 
necessary to protect her national safety. The investigations 
by our Prize Court have abundantly established that these 
shipments of American goods were in most cases destined for 
Germany, although in the first instance they were carried 
to and discharged in Scandinavian ports. It is also the 
fact that in all cases where one Prize Court has condemned 
conditional contraband it was proved that the German 
Government had taken control of the particular class of 
commodity, such as food-stuffs, or that the goods were of a 
kind used by the German naval or military forces, or that 
they were going to an enemy base of supplies. \\'e make 
no complaint that American shippers were wishful to trade 
in contraband goods, or when neutrals to supply Germany 
with such goods. A neutral is entitled to trade, even in 
contraband, with a belligerent if he can, but he runs the 
risk of the goods being seized and condemned. It is also 
to be noted that having regard to modern conditions, the 
size of ships and the large number of parcels of goods carried, 
it is essential that ships should be ordered into port for 
purposes of search and investigation. Moreover, the ship's 
papers by themselves would give no information as to what 
might be the real destination of the goods. The bill 
of lading would only inform the naval officer conducting the 
search the name of the shipper and the consignee, and such 
consignee, while seemingly an innocent neutral importing 
goods for the purposes of his own country, might in fact be 
acting as agent for the^ enemy. Search at sea would also 
gravely expose both the neutral vessel and the belligerent 
cruiser to enemy submarine attack. 
The Submarine — A New Factor 
It is interesting to remember that while the German Govern- 
ment has been clamouring for the freedom of the seas, she has 
in practice wantonly violated it by asserting her right to sink all 
ships — and possibly theircrews — whetherbelligerent orneutral, 
not only without search, but without warning. In what- 
ever sense freedom of the seas may in the future be inter- 
preted and practised by great maritime countries, it should 
be agreed and established beyond all doubt that ruthless 
submarine warfare must end. The right view of freedom 
of the seas may be one of some difficulty, but, having regard 
to our experience gained during the present war, it is 
certainly capable of_ amicable solution. We' are all agreed 
that during war there must be some belligerent interference 
with neutral trade, that the contention that those who take 
no part in a war ought not to be injured or inconvenienced is 
impossible, and that whilst the aim should be " freedom of the 
seas," it can only be such freedom as is consistent 
with a belligerent's national safety. The freedom of 
the seas as practised by Great Britain, her Al.ies, and 
America has been a most powerful factor in the defeat of 
Germany. 
