Viewed from Abroad

Foreign nations have taken no little interest in the decision of the Supreme Court which forbids their vessels to carry liquor as part of their ship stores, or even under seal, when in United States waters. There was a storm of protest in the English and French press.

The English Government, with its usual deliberation, has done nothing, and probably will do nothing until its legal experts have examined the Supreme Court ruling. The French Government, more impetuous, had Ambassador Jusserand visit the State Department and talk with Secretary Hughes. It, too, will probably make no formal protest until it is evident what the United States actually purposes doing. French, Italian and Spanish law requires that seamen on ships of those nationalities have a daily liquor ration. So there will be a direct clash between the laws of at least three countries and that of the United States. Ambassador Jusserand pointed this out to Mr. Hughes.

The French are talking of retaliatory measures, and it is claimed that by enforcing certain existing laws virtually every American vessel could be kept out of French ports. Conferences of ship owners are taking place in England to decide on a concerted plan of action against the new prohibition ruling. It is suggested that foreign ships may call at Halifax instead of New York, or drop their liquors there and proceed to New York. It is also suggested that foreign vessels may station rum ships just outside the three-mile limit, leaving their liquors "on deposit " while they touch port. All these plans are more or less discounted as impracticable.

The English are inclined to admit the legal right of the United States to act in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, at the same time protesting such action as unfair and discourteous. The French are more inclined to regard our action as an infraction of international law.