The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-01-16
England's Position With Regard tc
Neutral Vessels.

The precise text OF Lord ~SALIsBuRY's
reply to Mr., CHOATE's protest against the
seizure Of American Hour has not been pub
lished, but the general purport of it, if 1t
has been correctly described, Is s~atisfac-
tory, so far as it goes. We are informed
that the American iiour which was seized
on board OF the neutral Dutch vessel, the
Maria, has been released, and that tho
British Government has promised not TO
treat breadstuTs as contrabrand of war, I'M
less they are destined for consumption by
an enemy's armed force.
There is one point, however, on which
more light Is desirable. Who is to decide
whether neutral breadstuffs on board Of u
neutral vessel are destined for an enemy's
armed force? l. England TO be the sole
judge Of the evidence relating to that point,
and are her naval officers, II they find what
they see fit 10 consider primd fdrip incrlm-
inatOry evidence, to be still at liberty to
seize American -four, and to force the
owners to cxculpate themselves before a
British provincial prize court, from which,
as we have previously pointed out, the
agents for the British Government may
appeal to the Judicial Committee OF the
Privy Council, and thus subject American
citizens to great delay and expense? 1t is
obvious that this question goes to the
very rOot OF tho matter. IL the com
msnder OF a British warship can go be-
hind the manifest OF a neutral vessel. can
institute a search, and, upon evidence sat
isfactory to himself, can seize the vessel
and cargo and turn them over to a British
prize court, we might as well abandon our
trade in breadstufs in the event Of q
foreign war. Tho American consignor Of
food staples is seeking a market, not q
lawsuit, and, IL he finds himself compelled
to accept the latter instead Of the former,
he will quickly 20 out of business.
An American newspaper has said that,
upon this point, Lord SALISBURY has given
the very assurances that our shippers de-
sire, that he has agreed that British naval
officers shall depend exclusively upon the
manifcsts Of neutral vessels. and that,
where a manifest II unObjectionable upon
its face, no search shall br instituted. The
assertion has not yet been confirmed by
our State Department. When IL ia, but
Hol Nlllll Ail'lls NV bh gram Il''NNNfIN
will feel that q victory has been won for the
rights Of neutrals, in which the United
States are, Of all nations, next to England
herself, most deeply interested.
The exact ground on which the German
steamer Bundesrath was seized has not yet
been made known. The thorough search
to which that vessels cargo Is being sub
jected ut Durham indicates that tho pro-
vincial authorities will Try to show that the
Bundesrath was carrying ~contraband Of
war intended 70. the Beers. This is a dr.
ferent prctext from that which was put
forward at the time OF the seizure. Then
W were told that among the steamers
passengers We're a number 81 persons who
were intending 10 enter the Hoer service.
II the steamer WAS seized upon that
ground. the question raised in international
law would be- even more serious than
that which was presented in the affair Of
the front, which, like the Bundesrath,
was a mail and passenger steamer belong.
ing To u neutral power We did not
seize III" Trent, we merely stopped her
and took off certain persons who were
VIGOROUSLY in th" diplomatic service II
the Confederate States. BY the threat
OF wal, In" British Government compelled
Us 10 accept the principle that neutral
ships max" neutral passengers, and we,
accordingly, released Messrs. MASON and
SLIDELL. II England adhered To the
position which she forced rs to recognize
during our CivilWar, she will now acknowl-
edge that ~" had no right to arrest pas
srng"r~ on the Hundr~rGth, much less Ia
seize that y"s-r and will offer an adequate
indemnity for those acts.
Suppose, however. that, in the course
OF the search OF the cargo now going on
ct Durham, certain contraband articles