New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-04
BRITAIN DENIES
DEMAND OF U.S..
FOR FREE SEAS
Will Continue to Blockade
Neutral Ports, Is RetOrt
to Wilson.
RIGHT TO CUT OFF
COMMERCE OF FOE
Declares No Principle of Inter-
national Law Is ViOlated-Cites
Precedent of Civil War.
From The Trlbun. Bureau. ]

From The Tribun. Bureaul
Washington, Aug. 3.-The protest of
the United States against the enforce
ment of the British Order in Council
declaring a blockade of neutral Euro
pean ports is rejected by Great Britain
in three notes made public by the State
Department tonight. At the same time
the department gave out the text of the
American note Of July 10, protesting
the seizure Of the Neches, an American
ship, out Of Rotterdam with a cargo of
Belgian goods, and the recent caveat,
which already has been printed
The British reply to this last note
caused irritation among officials be-
cause of the intimation that the United
States was not taking drastic enough
action against Germany for her viola
tions Of neutral shipping rights, in
causing the loss of lives, ships and
property. The note is thought to ex-
hibit a decidedly testy feeling by the
British government, which has been no
ticeably lacking in previous communi-
cations.
The main British contention in the
notes concerning the Order in Council
is that no principle Of international law
is violated by the British blockade. It
is held that there is only one inn
mutable principle underlying the right
of blockade, namely, that of cutting
OF by effective means the sea-borne
commerce of the enemy"
Arbitration is suggested as last re-
sort if the American government is dis
satisfied with the decisions Of the Brit
ish prize courts.
Shows a Change of Front.
Officials point out that the British
notes repeatedly refer 10 blockade,
although it has never been officially ad-
mitted by Great Britain that an effort
was being made TO maintain legal and
effective blockade against Germany.
This change Of front will enable this
government to insist upon a recogni-
tion by Great Britain of the accepted
principles Of blockade
The right 10 blockade neutral ports,
denied by this government in its note
Of March 80, is defended by Great
Britain on the ground that it is in no
way deviation from the accepted
principles underlying the right Of
blockade.
II is contcnded that il is necessary
for Great Britain TO blockade the neu-
tral countries adjacent TO Germany, as
their ports are in fact the natural
ports of the German Empire.
A point in the British note that
caused much speculation among officials
is that in which il is held that Great
Britain was forced 10 take stringent
measures "in view Of the shocking vio-
lations Of the rules and principles Of
civilized warfare Of which Germany
has been guilty.
This. some officials think, is practi-
cally an admission that the Orders in
Council are intended as a reprisal.
which. by its very nature, is extra
legal, as held i'm this governments last
note TO Germany
Two Main Points.
Officials believe the controversy has
been reduced TO two main points. on
which the two governments are appar-
emily Numerically opposed. One Of
these is the question as TO whether the
British blockade does in fact CORE
spond with the accepted principles Of
international law. and is merely new
application Of those principles. The
other is whether this government is
justified in protesting automatically
before the prize and superior courts
have had an opportunity to pass on the
cases.
The reply Of the United States prob
ably will not be dispatched for fort
night. Secretary Lansing had note 10
Great Britain prepared and ready 20
send at the time Of the sending of the
last note to Germany, but the arrival
of the British notes delayed its send
ing. While the argument Of the United
States is not materially altered by the
British notes made public to-day, Of
hcials say it will be necessary TO make
extensive changes in the document as
originally prepared.
Great Britain again will be told that
the United States cannot recognize the
right of blockade as applied to neutral
ports, and that, in view OF the lllegallty
Of such blockade, it cannot recognize
the jurisdiction of the British prize
courts and superior courts.
Officials believe a deadlock has been
reached. There is no indication that
either government will yield TO the
others poin. of view. and the two are
now exactly opposite. Whether the
United States will eventually adopt the
British suggestion of arbitration IS
conjectural.
Great Britain's reply was made
public here tonight and in London
simultaneously By agreement between
the two governments. With the notes
was made public also the correspond
Continued on page 2. column l.