New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-05
The British Note.

contention that the United States should
waive any rights because of the manner IN
which Germany has made war upon Brit
ain and her allies is inadmissible. We
have declined to permit Germany to plead
necessity" or "reprisal" in her dealings
with us; we have refused to accept her
arguments based upon British violations OF
international law, real or alleged. We can
do no less with Great Britain.
In the second place, for this point will
be the subject of much argument and
great deal more allegation in the future,
it is essential to establish the degree of
similarity between German and British
cases; that is, the degree to which we shall
be able to act in the same way with two
powers now at variance with US.
Patiently there is in all things but one
a clear parallel. When the Germans tor
pedoed the Leelanaw the other day The
Tribune promptly and plainly indicated
that the question raised by this act grew
out of variant interpretations of treaty,
that the German contention was arguable,
and that five and the Germans could not
agree the resort should be to arbitration.
Now. all our differences with Great Brit
ain, like those over the Leelanaw and the
Frye with Germany concern property
rights treaty rights, or rights claimed
under international law Therefore it is
essential TO recognize at the beginning that
what are discussed are disagreements
which can and ought to be settled by arbi-
tration. if no agreement can be had by
diplomacy.
On the otter hand, it is equally necessary
90 perceive that there is no parallel be-
tween our differences with Germany over
the Lusitania and any disagreement we
have with England. We shave informed
Germany further wanton murder of Amer
lean citizens win be viewed as a "deiber
atey unfriendly act" A systematic effort
will be made TO procure equally vigorous
language in dealing with Great Britain.
This effort should fail and must fail be-
cause no question of life divides Great
Britain from us, and Sir Edward Grey has
neither asserted the right of murder, nor
has he been asked by US to give assurance
against murder. Our cases with Great
Britain are purely civil. Such of our cases
with Germany as are civil, not criminal,
will follow the same course. But we shall
continue to regard murder as different
thing and refrain from using toward Eng
land the language used toward Germany
just as long as Great Britain continues to
avoid individual or collective assassina-
ton.
Passing now to the British argument, it
will be seen that two things are chiefly
relied upon by the British. We have said,
in our last note to Germany and else
where, that we recognize how greatly con-
ditions of naval warfare have changed
and have no desire to rely upon purely
technical legal points We have also, in
our Civil War history, given to interna-
tional law number of doctrines and prin-
ciples by which we are bound and to which
Great Britain is justly entitled to appeal
now for support.
We are thus bound to observe all rea-
sonable latitude in the matter of interfer-
ence with our shipping, up to the point at
which the principle back of the text of the
international precept suffers. This we
have been ready to do equally in the case
of Germany and Great Britain.
Now as to Civil War precedents We
did adopt and establish the doctrine of
continuous voyage. In word, since Brit
ish Nassau was a convenient base for
contraband trade with the South we as
serted and exercised the right to take con-
traband from vessels going from neutral
ports to Nassau if we could establish the
fact that its ultimate destination was an
enemy port.
England now argues that on this ground
she can intercept goods bound for Holland
if she suspects that they are designed for
German use. But England has proclaimed
no blockade, while actually maintaining
one. She pretends to exercise this priv
ilege with respect to contraband as well as
non-contraband, and not merely when des-
tined for Germany but also when origi-
mating in Germany.
The parallel with Nassau is far from
exact, because while Nassau was a mere
sandbank, with highly limited capacity for
consumption, Holland, Denmark, Sweden
and Norway are nations, with an indus
trial life. The right of Holland to accumu-
late large stores of cotton in excess of her
ordinary consumption cannot be denied, |
and the mere fact of an excess Of impor-
tation over former years, when the world
was at peace, does not justify Great Brit
ain in acting on the assumption that all
excess is designed for Germany. This
amounts to the assertion of the right to
regulate the industrial life of neutral ma