The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-11-10

i seugir TO exercises in its relations with
the warning nations:"
The note is dated October 81 and
acknowledges the notes of the British
government dated January Z, Febru.
AIRY 10, June 22, July 23, July 81
| Ctko), August Is. and a note verbale
of the British embassy of August g.
all OF which relate to restrictions
upon American commerce. The
United States says at the outset that
l;it has delayed answering these notes
Fin the hope that the announced pur-
Epose OF Great Britain ito exercise
their belligerent right with every pos
lsible consideration for the interests
l'of neutrais' and of causing 1.-The least
possible amount Of Inconvenience to
persons engaged in, legitimate trade
would in practice not unjustinably in
fringe upon the neutral rights OF
|American citizens.
1t Is therefore a matter of regret"
says the note, that .his hope has not
been realized. but that on the con-
trary interferences with American
ships and cargoes destined in good
faith to neutral ports and lawfully
entitled to- proceed have become in
creasingly vexatious, causing A1neri-
can ship owners and American mer-
chants to Complain to this govern
ment OF the failure to take steps to
prevent any exercise of beliigeren,
power in contravention Of their Just
rights. AS the measures complained
of proceed directly from orders issued
by the British government are execut-
ed by British authorities and arouse
a reasonable apprehension that, if not
resisted. they may be carried to an
extent even more injurious to Ameri-
can interests this government directs
the attention of his majesty's govern
ment to the following considerations"
Here follow in numbered para
graphs the points made by the United
States. Summarized they are:
1. The statistics presented by Great
Britain to prove an increase rather
than a decrease in American trade
fail to take into account the in
creased price Of commodities result
Ing from a state OF war or to make
any allowance for the diminution in
the volume OF trade which the neu-
.tral countries in Europe previously
had with the nations at war"
2. Detentions by Great Britain have
not been uniformly based on proofs
obtained at the time of seizure, but
many vessels have been detained
while search was made for evidence"
The questions has been one OF "eyi-
dencc TO support the belief of-in
many cases bare suspicion Of
enemy destination, or occasionally of
enemy origin Of the goods involved"
8. Attention is directed with regard
to search of neutral vessels at sea to
the instructions Issued to the naval
commanders of the United States,
Great Britain. Russia, Japan, Spain,
Germany and France from 1888 to the
beginning Of the present war to show
that search In port was not contem-
plated by the government of any of
these countries"
4. An examination of the opinion
or the most eminent text writer's on
the laws of nations shows that they
give practically no consideration to
the question of search in port outside
of examination in the course Of regu-
lar prize court proceedings"
5. Answering the assertion Of Great
Britain that the position of the United
States in relation of search at sea is
inconsistent with its practice during
the Civil War. the note says this is
based upon a "misconception." A
careful search of the records Shows
conclusively that there were no in
stances when vessels were brought
into port for search prior to institut-
ing prize court proceedings" and that
captures were not made upon other
grounds than evidence found on the
ship under Investigation. and not
upon circumstances ascertaineG from
external sources. 1t is here that
Secretary Lansing appends q copy of
the instructions issued to American
naval officers on August IS, 1862.
6. In answer to the British con-
tention that conditions relating to the
size and seawCrthiness OF modern car
riers justify bringing vessels into port,
there Is cited the report of a board
OF United Statea naval axports iust