The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1915-08-03
SUPPRESSION OF TRADE
DEFENDED BY ENGLAND
Two New Notes Engaging At
tentiOn of Secretary of State.
GERMANY ALSO RESPONDS
England Sets Much Stress by Its
Prize Court Proceedings in
New Answer.

from the British government and
one from Berlin still dealing with the
commercial rights of neutral ma
tions in war time were before Secre-
tary Lansing tonight. Two notes
from Great Britain supplementing
the one received today. The British
communications probably will be
given out for publication Wednesday
morning and the German note for
the following day. The first British
note defends the allies efforts to sup
press trade between their enemies
and neutral countries, even by the
stoppage of abnormal commerce
iacent to the Teutonic allies. Pre-
cedents in international law estab-
lished by the United States givern-
ment itself during the Civil War in
order to cut off supplies from the
Confederate states are revived to
support this assertion of right
The note was intended to meet the
objection of the United States that
previous notes had dealt only with
special cases of seizures and deten-
tions of ships and cargoes under CON
ditions that seemed to justify the
British action, failing to answer the
American contentious that the whole
process of interference with neutral
commerce was in violation of inter
national law After it had been dis
patched new conditions arose. that
determined the British government
, to amplify its argument.
One of these was a protest by the
state department against the seizure
OF the American ship Neches. bound
from Rotterdam to New York with
a cargo of Belgian and German goods.
The Neches case made necessary a
defense of the allies right to cut of
Germany's export trade to neutral
countries and the financial benefit to
be derived from that business.
The second note of the series deals
With this issue and ii is. understood
that II sets UP the contention that
an actual blockade of the North Sea
ports exists and that regardless of
the British orders-in-counci there is
an inherent right in the blockading
powers under International law to
suppress traffic OF this kind.
The last note is in reply to the
American caveat of July II saying
the United States would be governed
only by the principles OF international
law in dealing with cases OF dteen-
tion of American ships and goods.
and would not recognize the orders
in-council. The British foreign
Office holds that the orders-in -coun.
Gil comply with the spirit of inter
national law, though il is admitted
that a new application of these prin-
ciples to suit the new conditions de-
veloped in the war has been made.
British prize court proceedings
wherein the magistrates have as
sumed that the orders-in-council
were in conformity with intrrna
tional Law provoked the American
communication. The British con
tend that the United States govern
ment cannot assume that it's mer-
chants have suffered permanent in
jury, since there is always In reserve
the right OF diplomatic review OF
prize court decisions and even %
arbitration, under the special arbl-
tration treaty between the United
States and Great Britain
The German note continuing the
discussion over the sinking of the
American ship William P. Frye, by a
German commerce raider, deals with
the American contention that not
only international law, but also the
special provisions Of the treaty ~
1928 between the United states and
Prussia had been violated. The note
makes no substantial change. il Is
understood, in the original German
contention that while the treaty OF
1928 does confer special privileges
and exceptions upon American ship
pings these can all be met ana the
right reserved to sink merchant
shipG upon the undertaking to com
pensate the owners thereafter. The
German oHBeiaI declaration of war