The Washington times., 1915-06-23
.NFORCINd THE BLOCKADE

The British legislation and orders
in council for the more effective en-
forcement of the blockade against
Germany amounts to the declara
tion that Holland may receive all
the imports she needs for her own
use, but that goods of all kinds must
be limited to the domestic needs of
the kingdom. Holland has been do
ing a thriving business as middle
man for Germany, receiving vast
amounts of the particular supplies
that Germany most needs, and for
warding them over the border to
Germany.
Britain and her allies face the
necessity of making their blockade
Of Germany effective. 1t is mani
fest that no blockade would be
worth while that merely closed the
ports of Germany, but permitted
that country to receive supplies
through Holland, Denmark, and the
Scandinavian countries. A long step
toward more effective isolation of
the central empires was taken when
Italy was induced to join the en-
tente, for a great traffic had been
done through Italy. Moreover,
France and Britain were in poor
posture to insist upon extreme regu-
lations against Italy; they did not
want to give unnecessary offense
because they wished above every
thing else to bring Italy to their
standard as an avowed ally. This
has now been accomplished, and the
way is open to enforce strong rules
against the smaller northern coun-
tries adjacent to Germany.
There will be, of course, a deal
Of American protest against this
British assumption of the right to
interfere in our trade with Holland.
But it will be perfectly bootless, for
the simple reason that the United
States is the country that made the
law of the continuous voyage, in it's
present form and adjudication, dur
ing the civil war. At the opening
of that war there was no such doc
trine as Mr.. Seward afterward de-
veloped, though the British prize
courts had laid the foundation of
it. But the American Government
made it over into an instrument for
effectively shutting up neutral ports.
The British exporters Of muni-
tions and supplies 20 the Confeder-
acy insisted that they were entitled
to send cargoes Under neutral flag
to the British port of Nassau, Ba-
hama, without interference by the
United States naval forces that
were blockading the South, 50 long
as the cargoes were billed to the
general market of Nassau and the
ships papers did not show any in
tent to forward them to Confeder-
ate ports. The Northern Govern
ment presently discovered that Mas
sau was doing about as much bust,
ness as London; many times in ex-
cess of the volume transacted in
time of peace, and manifestly based
on the fact that the goods were be-
ing received under the cover of Mas
sau's status as a neutral port, and
then forwarded to Southern ports
when opportunity presented.
Capturing some cargoes that were
on their way to Nassau, the United
States held that the essence of the
whole matter concerned the intent.
The ultimate destination of ship
loads of arms and ammunition was
without question the Southern mill
tary forces; so the prize courts
and finally the Supreme Court
stretched the continuous voyage
doctrine to include the right of cap
ture of a neutral vessel while sail
ing from one neutral port to an
other.
Great Britain went through the
motions of vigorous protest; but in
the end the doctrine as thus revised
was maintained, Britain doubtless
being willing enough, in her capacity
as the greatest Of naval powers, to