The Penn's Grove record., 1915-11-12

while search was pursued for evidence
10 show that the cargoes were CON,
traband or that ships violated the non
intercourse orders of Great Britain.
Some, 1t is asserted, were seized On
DeEef or bare suspicion of the contra
band nature of their cargoes. Mr..
Lansing says that from 1888 to the
beginning of the present war the prin-
clpal maritime nations, including
Great Britain, did not contemplate
search in port, but search at sea to
determine whether a vessel carried
c~ontraband. He contends that the
British assertion that the position of
the United States concerning search
at sea is inconsistent with its practice
in the American civil war, is based
on misconception. 1t is conceded that
there may have been Irregularities at
the beginning of the civil war, but that
a careful search of the United States
records SHOW ~conclusively there were
no instances when vessels we're
brought into portsfor search prior to
i%nstituting prize court proceedings. or
that captures were made on other
grounds than evidence found on the
ship and not upon circumstances as
certained from external search" To
back up this assertion Mr.. Lansing ap-
Ponds to the note a copy of an instruc-
ton issued in 1862 by Gideon Welles,
Secretary of the Navy to American
naval nA6oarc fOr 4hnfr n,fJa-aa0 J,,v
ing the civil war.
Condemns Part Searches.
Great Britain's contention that mod
ern conditions justify bringing YES
sells into port for search-a conten-
ton, Mr.. Lansing says, that is based
ern sea carriers and the difficulty of
covering the real transaction in the
intricate trade operations of the pres
ent days dismissed on the ground
that, hampered as they are by en-
sorship, they are not more complex
cent years. The note includes an TX
tract from a report of a board of naval
experts to the effect that present ia
cilities for boarding inspection ships
are greater than in former times.
This Government complains that the
British Prize Court changed the prac-
tice of Great Britain of more than a
century in determining whether a yes
sci was prize, with the result that
innocent vessels or cargoes are de-
tanned on mere suspicion. The Brit
ish contention that it's practice as to
lowed the American position in the
civil war is disputed. The United
States refuses to accept as a rule of
evidence the presumption that GER
tain military commodities shipped to
a neutral are intended for enemy uses.
Secretary Lansing calls attention to
the fact that the British Government
admits that British exports to neutral
countries shave also materially in
creased since the present wal began"
The United States holds that if the
rule of presumption of ultimate enc
my destination applies to American
shipments it must apply also to Brit
ish shipments. Great Britain" it is
declared, cannot expect the United
State to submit to such manifest in
justice or to permit the rights of it's
citizens to be SO seriously impaired"
The United States, it is set forth,
maintains the right to sell goods into
the general stock of a neutral coun-
try "and denounces as illegal and I'M
ju%stifiable any attempt of a belliger-
ent to interfere with that right on
the ground that it suspects that the
previous supply Of such goods in the
neutral country, which the imports
renew or replace, has been sold to
an enemy"
Must Contest Seizures.
In view of the these considerations
the United States has no other course,
Secretary Lansing declares, but to
contest seizures of vessels at sea upon
conjectural suspicion and the practice
of OBTAINING them in port for the pur-
pose of obtaining evidence to justify
prize court proceedings. To this Mr..
Lansing adds:
Relying on the regard of the Brit
ish Government for the principles Of
justice so frequently and uniformly
manifested prior to the present war,
this Government anticipates that the
British Government will instruct their
officers to refrain from these e
tious and illegal practices"
Mr.. Lansing notes that after more
than six months application of the
blockade order the experience of
American citizens has convinced the
United States that Great Britain has
been unsuccessful in her efforts to
distinguish between enemy and neu-
trad trade. This Government, it is
declared, is nov forced to the realiza-
ton that its expectations that incon-
v%enience to neutral trade would be
minimized by the discretion left to
the British courts, which were fully