New-York tribune., 1915-03-28
BALFOUR DEFENDS
BRITISH BLOCKADE
Continued from page ]

the German trade with Sweden and
Norway In the same position as Ger
man trade with Holland and Denmark
and in a different position trom the
German trade with America or Africa.
"But the discrimination if 1t is 10
be so described, is not the result OF
deliberate policy but of geographical
accident. II is not due to any desire
TO favor Scandinavian exporters as
COMPARED with American exporters, and
in practice il will have no such effect.
They are not, nor to any important
extent can they be, competing rivals in
the German market.
but, after all, il is the equity OF
the Allies case rather than the law
which mainly interests the thinking
public in America The question which
presses most iusistently for an answer
is not directly connected with legal
/ definitions of blockade but with prob-
4 lens Of international morality. There
are German thinkers of distinction
/ who deny that any such morality eX-
lists, but this, happily, is not doctrine
which has any chance of acceptance
among the English speaking people.
What Morality Requires.
"What. then, does international mo-
rality require of one belligerent when
the other belligcrent tramples interna-
tional law in the dust? To some per
sons the answer to this question seems
easv. Why, they ask, should the crime
Of one party modify the policy Of the
other. international rules should be
oheved by both sides, but their repudi-
alton bv one side leaves the obligation
of the other unimpaired.
"Such an answer however. confouEds
international morality with interna-
ticnal law, and though doubtless the
two are closely related they are not
identical. The obligation Of the first Is
absolute. That Of the second Is con-
ditional. and one of its conditions Is
reciprocity.
international law has no sanction.
No penalties are inflicted on those who
violate its rules, and if state make
use of forbidden weapons, the neutrals
who blame is policy do nothing TO pro-
tect its victim. Nor is this surprising.
In The present unorganIzod condition of
international relations it could not well
be o; erwise. But let them remember
that impotence. like power, has duties
as we'll as privileges, and If they can
/ not enforce the law Oh those who Vlo-
/ late both its spirit and its letter, let
| them not make haste TO crltlclse belhE-
erents .-ho may thereby be compelled
in self-defence TO violate its letter
while carefully regarding its spirit.
IF the rules of warfare are 10 bind
one bellgerent and leave the other
free, they cease to mitigate suffering
and only load the dice IN favo OF the
unscrupulous. Those countries, too,
will most readily agree 70 changes IN
the law of nations who do not mean TO
be hound by them. We must not, how
ever, conclude that the absence OF rect
procity justiies the injured party IN
acting as if international law and IN
ternational morality had thereby been
abrogated. This would be a monstrous
doctrine
"The Germans. who began hostilities
By tearing up treaty, continued X by
innictlng the worst horrors OF war
upon a people they had sworn { de
fend. Could we. therefore. argue that
because the obligations of international
law are reciprocal the Allies when the
opportunity occurs Will be justified in
doing to Germany all that Germany
has done TO Belgium? ASsuredly not.
/ preach no such doctrine.
Germany would indeed have no ri ght
20 complain OF Itla4ldl4On IN hlnu, Dul
this would not justify US in descend
ing to her level. The policy which |
am defending has no resemblance to
this. II violates no deep ethical in
stincts. 1t is in harmony With the
spirit Of international law. 1t is more
regardful OF neutral interests than the
.scceDted rules Of blockade. Nor is the
ininrv which il is designed TO iniict
on the enemy Of a different character
from that inflicted by an ordinary
blockade. And. lastly. it is a reply TO
an attack which is not only illegal but
immoral. and if some reply be legit'-
mate and necessary, can better one oe
Z