Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/179

 156

THE GREEN BAG

accordingly to qualify our acceptance of the report by the reservation that a full consider ation of this most important question should precede the adoption of any suggested rem edy. And we may add that the severity of the existing rule had much effect in inducing us to accept the conclusions of the report on the subject of indemnity." That the present rule would not be of very great value to Great Britain was the general opinion of the Commissioners, who as a result of communications with the admiralty, expressed the conclusion that "even if an attack on commerce were attempted, it probably could not last long, since the vital importance of obtaining supremacy at sea is now so well understood by all maritime nations, that it seems unlikely any of them would deliberately spend their strength in attempting such an enterprise as a general attack on commerce until the main issue had been decided." In contemplating the effect upon the Brit ish carrying-trade of a maritime war to which Great Britain was a party, Englishmen are considering seriously the reasoning of John Stuart Mill, that "if our commerce would be safe in neutral bottoms, but unsafe in our own, then if the war were of any duration our whole export and import trade would pass to the neutral flags, and most of our merchant shipping would be thrown out of employment. A protracted war on such lines would end in national disaster. It will then become an actual necessity for us to take the second step and obtain the exemption of all private property at sea from the contingencies of war." Even more direct and positive is the ex pression of opinion made by the representa

tives of trade before the Royal Commission: "It is difficult to overrate the seriousness of the danger to our shipping. There is, so long as private property at sea remains liable to hostile capture, no single, complete way out of the difficulty." The result of the investigations by the Royal Commission on food supply is summed up by Mr. Robertson as follows: "This rule has been retained in International Law mainly by the refusal of Great Britain to consent to its abolition, at a time when her economical and even her naval position in relation to other nations was quite unlike what it is now; that the rule has been grad ually falling into discredit — partially in this country, generally in others; that there is good ground for thinking that the right of capture is of no great value to us, and also that it will not in fact be exercised to any great extent until the closing stages of the war; that there is also good ground for think ing that, apart from the mere mention of supplies, the rule, taken in connection with the Declaration of Paris, must have the effect of transferring a large portion of our vast carrying trade to neutral flags." That other nations would probably consent to the abolition of the old rule may fairly be inferred from the expression of their repre sentatives at the close of the Peace Confer ence of 1899. Before adjourning they ex pressed their sentiments as follows: "The Conference expresses the wish that the pro posal which contemplates the declaration of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare may be referred to a subsequent conference for consideration." MORGANTOWN, W. VA., February, 1906.