The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-08-04

to interfere by blockade if the geo. graphical position and the conditions of Germany at present were such that her commerce passed through her own ports. We are taking the utmost pos- sible care not to interfere with com merce genuinely destined for or pro- ceeding from neutral countries. Fur thermore, we have tempered the se- press upon neutrals by not applying the rule. which was invariable in the old form. of blockade, that ships and goods on their way to or from the blockade area are liable to condemna- ton.
 12. The communication made by the United States Embassy on April 2 de- scribes as a novel and quite unprece- dented feature of the blockade that if embraces many neutral ports and coasts and has the effect of barring access to them. It does not appear that our measures can be properly so described. If we are successful in the efforts we are making to distinguish between the commerce of neutral and enemy. countries there will be no sub stantiaI interference with the trade of neutral ports, except in so far ae they constitute ports of access to and exit from the enemy territory. There are at this moment many neutral ports which it would be mere afectation to regard as offering facilities only for the commerce of the neutral country in which they are situated, and the only commerce with, which we propose to interfere is that of the enemy who seeks to. make use of such ports for the purposes of transit to or from his own country
 Confusion of Methods.
 1s. One of the earlier passages in your Excellencyss memorandum was | to the effect that the sovereignty of neutral nations in time of war suffers 1a practice and consent of civilized na- tions have limited it "by the recognf- tion of certain now clearly determined rights which it is considered may be exercised by nations at war, and these lit defines as the right of capture and condemnation for unneutra1 service, for the carriage of contraband, and for breach of blockade may, however, | be permitted to point out that the practice of nations on each of the three subjecs mentioned has not at any time been uniform or clearly determined, nor has the practice of gany maritime nation always been consistent
 IA. There are various particulars in | which the exact method of carrying a blockade into effect has from time to notification, the requisite standard of 1 effectiveness. the locality of the blockading squadrons, the right of the l individual ship to a preliminary warn t ing that the blockade is in force, and 1.-the penalty to be inflicted sonTa cap
 tured blockade runner, are all subjects 1 on which different views have prevail l ed in different countries and in which l the practice of particular countries has | been altered from time to time. The one principle which is fundamenta1 l and has obtained universal recogni- l ton, is that by means of blockade a oe1ligerent is entitled to cut off, by lsefective means, the sea-borne conn 1 nerce of his enemy.
 Slssst15. Itsfs the same with contraband. The underlying princip1e isswell estab-
 Iished. but as to the details. there has
 unneutral service thesvery term is of such recent intr oductfon that many
 writers Of repute on international law do not mention it--it Is possible, in the view of his Majesty's Government 1 in these circumstances to maintain l that the right of a be1ligerent to in Itercept the commerce of his enemy
 Is limited in the way suggested insyour
 Excellencyss communication.
 Seizure of Enemy Goods.
 16. There are certain subsidiary i matters dealt with in your ERcelency's communication to which I think it vel I to refer. Among these may be men
 toned your citation of the Declaration of Paris. due, no doubt, to the words
 which occur in the memorandum sent l by me to your Excellency on the 1si
 of March. wherein it was stated thai
 the allied Governnnents would hold I themselves free to detain and take in.
 to port ships carrying goods Of pre-.
 suned enemy destination. ownership or origin, and to our announcement that vessels might be required to dis.
 charge goods Of enemy ownership al
 well as those of enemy origin or desti-
 nation.
 Il I+ fs rof nece-ea,-.z A 55;-c,,.. the extent to which the second rule 5o1
 the Declaration of Paris is affected by these measures or whether 1t could be
 held to apply at all as between Great
 Britain and the United States. IT ;i actual practice, however, we are no that they are the property of an enc my. The purpose of the measures VI are taking is to intercept commerct on its way from and to the enemy country. There are many cases il which proof that the good were enem1 property would afford strong evidenc, that they were of enemy origin ol
 enemy destination, and it is only il l such cases that we are detaininl them. Where proof of enemy owner l ship would afford no evidence of suci : origin or destination we are not il practice detaining the goods. IS. His Majesty's AGovernment hay,
 been gratified to observe that tn. measures which they are enforcint have had no detrimental effect on tn, t commerce of the United States. Fig
 ures of recent months show that tn increased opportunities afforded by tn war for American commerce hay more than compensated for the los of the German and Austrian markets 19. I trust that in the light of tn l above explanations it will be realize, that the measures to which we hay resorted have been not only justifiei ] by the .exigencies of the case, but cal !, be defended as in accordance witt general principles which have com mended. themselves to the Govern l nents of both countries. I am gIaJ ] to be able to assure your ExceIlenc : that we shall continue to annIx- tt,as