The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1915-03-18
Member of the Associated Press.
THURSDAY, MARCH Is, 1915.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

1T Is evident that the determination OF
the English and French governments to
put a ban on all trade with Germany,
and 50 prevent supplies of all kinds, es,
pecially of food, from going to the people
of that country, will raise very interesting
and important questions, and be the sub
lect OF serious controversy. To the mind
of the average layman, uneducated in in
ternational usage and the laws of war, it
| looks as if the allies We're justified in at
| tempting to starve Germany, in retalia-
tion for that country's relentless prose
cution of submarine warfare. But on the
other hand it is we'll understood that our
government viii protest vigorously
against the ban on the ground that it is a
violation Of the rights of neutrals,
Interest is given to this question by
i letter printed in the New York Times of
| Wednesday from the pen Of Frederic r..
Coudert prominent lawyer Of New
i York City, and the son of the eminent
Il lawyer OF the same name who was an
authority on international questions, hav-
ing represented the United States govern
ment in the case Of the Alaska seal fish
cries dispute and in the Venezuelan boun-
DIARIES case. Mr.. Coudert takes ground, IN
brief, that the English Orders in Coun-
ell, as Just promulgated, and over which
the controversy has arisen, do not so VIC
late or exceed the principles of interna-
tional law, and the traditional practices
OF nations at war, to Justify the United
States in protesting against them as extra
legal. He says:
II believe that a tentative study OF
these Orders in Council will indicate two
things:
First That their interference with
neutral commerce is not an illegtimatc
extension of the necessary interference
with neutral commerce, permissible under
the rules OF international law as practiced
by the United States itself, and,
''Second-That in their effects they have
been made to bear as lightly as possible
on neutrals and the more onerous conse-
quences of blockade have been avoided
The prohibitions enumerated in the
British orders are of four kinds:
Il. No merchant vessels from any port
shall be allowed to proceed to any Ger
man port.
- No merchant vessel sailing from
any German port shall be allowed to pro
ceed on her voyage.
% Any merchant vessel sailing from
any port to any port, carrying goods witt
: an enemy destination, or enemy property
|. may be arrested, and
II. Every merchant vessel sailing from
r a port other than d German port, l. e.,
neutral port and having on board good
of enemy origin or enemy property ma,
likewise be arrested
The really important prohibitions, s.
far as the rights of neutral countries ar
concerned, are those comprised in Nos.
and /, and in regard to these Mr.. Couder
makes the very interesting assertion tia
they give the United States no cause 10
4 grievance because (referring to No. ,
during the Civil war, found it necessar
4 in order to accomplish the objects OF 1t
blockade Of the South to pursue TIM
81 very course. Its action in so doing wa
81 sustained by the Supreme Court of tn
q United States, and their decision, sent t
an arbitration commission, by request c
a Great Britain, was in turn sustained b
4 an arbitral board
q That is to say, our Supreme Court, an
4 the subsequent arbitration, held that OF
1 blockade of the South would have bee
Y OF no effect if it had been possible for til
4 Confcderates to get supplies by havin
them sent to Bermuda, or some other mel
q trail port, and then trans-shipping thel
Il from there by neutral vessels.
A And the same way with No. 4: =
Il would be easy for Germany to hay
IS an outlet for her commerce and to NAL
" the British blockade ineffective if 81
- could use, say, Rotterdam for the purpo
Of sending out her goods and vending the
to the outside world bv means of neutr