Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-11-08
BRITISH BLOCKADE
DECLARED ILLEGAL

Continued From First Page.1
energies to the task, exercising always
an impartial attitude.
The note, nearly 5000 words in
length, was made public by agreement
between the State Department and the
British Foreign Office. 1t carries with
it voluminous appendix. giving the
text of American naval instructions is
sued in 1852 and a summary and table
showing hundreds of vessels detained
by British authorities since the begin
ming of the present war.
Tone of Note Is Less Histrionic
TIL tone of the note is markably less
hfstrfonic than that of the note sent
to Germany regarding the submarine
issue. No threat or intimation of flu
ture action is contained in it beyond
the single statement that the United
States Government will devote its
energy" to the task of upholding neu-
trail rights against British aggression.
From first to last it is a legal argument
clear but unadorned.
Nevertheless the expense of these
issues which the United States thereby
raises with the British Government and
the unqualified character of the Amer
ican assertion as to the legality of the
British procedure gives this note a
substance and significance which other
more strongly phrased communica-
tions from the State Department did
not possess
This is the first time the illegality
of the British blockade of Germany
and Austria has been Internationally
asserted. Thus the United States Gov
ernment placed itself in the position
of recognizing no seizures. confisca-
tions or other penalties or restrictions
imposed upon American cargoes under
the regulation governing the blockade.
OF certainly no less and perhaps of
more importance is the refusal of the
United States to accept a judicial de-
termination OF the legality of seizures
and confiscation made under this
blockade through British ports. Thus
the United States refuses to confine
these trade issues to the court for a
judicial settlement, and makts of them
direct diplomatic controversy fore
shadowing more and perhaps frequent
diplomatic representation to Great
Britain.
British Effort For Judicial Settlement
The principle effort of Great Bri-
tain, as set forth in her diplomatic
communication to the United States has
been to arrange for a judicial settle
ment of these issues. If American
shippers or carriers considered that
they have suffered denial of Justice
at the hands of the British, the British
Government would have their cases
reviewed by British prize courts: then
to an appellate court and finally to an
international tribuntl upon which citi-
zens of the United States would have
had an equal representation with Brit
ish subjects. A settlement of this is
sue through the courts would avoid
the agitation incident to a frequent
public exchange of notes and would
| thus have removed Il possible source
of strain to Anglo-American relations.
But the United States rejects this
method of settlement on the grounds
that the British courts are not admin
istering international law, but British
law, which they have no right to ad-
minister with regard to ships or cargo
of other than British owenrship when
they are seized outside of British ter
ritorial waters.
Important points in note are:
The methods sought to be employed
| by Great Britain to obtain and use
evidence of enemied destination of
| cargo bound for neutral ports and to
| impose a contraband character upon
such cargoes are without justification
That the blockade upon which such
|
tive, illegal and indefensible; that the
judicial procedure offered as means
of reparation for an international in
| jury is inherently defective for the
purpose, and that in many cases juris-
diction is assertion in violation of the
law of nations.
The United States cannot with COM
placence suffer further subordination
of its rights and interests to the plea
that the exceptional geographic posi-
| ton of the enemies of Great Britain
require or justify oppressive and ille-
! gal practices
The Government of the United
States desires to impress most earnest
| ly upon England that it must insist
| that the relation between it and Great
| Britain be governed not by a policy of
expediency, but by those established
rules of international existence.
The United States Government feels
| that it cannot reasonably be expected
to advise it's citizens to seek redress
, before tribunals british prize and ap-
| pellate courts), which are in it's opin-
ion unauthorized by the unrestricted
application of international law to
grant reparation nor refrain from pre-
venting their claims directly to the
British Government through diploma
| tic channels.
The United States has no other
course but to contest seizures of ves-
sells at sea upon conjectural suspicion,
and the practice of bringing them into
port for the purpose by search or
otherwise of obtaining evidence, for
the purpose of justifying prize pro-
ceedings of the carriage of contraband
or of breaches of the Order in Council
of March II.