New Britain herald., 1915-04-06

1t has been conceded the right to de- tain an dtake to its own ports for jul dcial examination all vessels which 1t suspects for substantial reasons to be engaged In unneutral Or contraband service and to condemn them 1T the suspicion Is sustained. But such rights long clearly defined both Tn doctrine and practice, have hitherto been held to be the only permissible exceptions to the principle of uni versal equality of sovereignty on the high seas as between beillgerents and nations not engaged in war.
 Tt is confidently assumed that his majesty's government will not deny that 1t is a rule sanctioned by general practice that even though blockade should exist and the doctrine of con- traband as to upblockaded territory be rigidly enforced. innocent ship ments may freely be transported to and from the United States through neutral countries to belligerent terri tory without being subject to the penalties of contraband traffic or breach of blockade, much less to de- tention, requisition, or notification.
 However, the rules of the Declara- ton of Paris of 1s56-among them that free ships make free goods. will hardly at this day be disputed by the signatories of that solemn agreement.
 Not Sustained by Great Britain.
 His majestys government, like the government of the United States, have often and explicitly held that these rights represent the best usage. of war tare in the dealings of belligerents with neutrals at sea. In this connec- xIa0 opinion of the chief justice of the United States in the case of the Peterhof, which arose out of the Civil war, and to the fact that that opinion was unanimously sustained in the award of the arbitration commission of 1871, to which the case was pre- sented at the request of Great Britain. From that time to the Declaration of London of 1909, adopted with modif- ca tions by the order-in-council of the 23rd of October last these rights have not been seriously questioned by the British government. And no claim on the part of Great Britain or any justification for interfering with the clear rights of the United States and it's citizens as neutrals could be ad- mitted To admit it would be to as- sure an attitude of unneutrality toward the present enemies of Great Britain which would be obviously in consistent with the solemn obligations of this government in the present cir cumstances; and for Great Britain to make such claim would be for her to abandon and set at naught the principles for which she has consist ently and earnestly contended in other times and circumstances.
 "The note of his majesty's princi- pal secretary of state for foreign af- fairs which accompanies the order-in- council and which bears the same 1 date, notifies the government of the United States of the establishment of a blockade which is, if defined by the | terms of the order-in-council, to in clude all the costs and pores of Ger many and every port of possible acess | to enemy territory. But the novel and quite unprecedented feature of : that blockade, if we are to assume it to be properly so defined, Is that it | embraces many neutral ports and 1 coasts, bars access to them, and sub- ! jects all neutral ships seeking to ap- l proach them to the same suspicion ! that would attach to them were they bound for the ports of the enemies of Great Britain, and to unusual risks and penalties.
 l Invasion of Sovereign Rights.
 Ut Is manifest that such limita = tions, risks and liabilities placed upon 1 the ships of neutral power on the | high seas, beyond the right of visit l and search and the right to prevent 1 the shipment of contrab band already l referred to, are distinct invasion of l the sovereign rights of the nation
 whose ships, trade, or commerce is | interefered with.
 "The government of the United ! States, is, of course, not oblivious to
 the great changes which have oc-
 cured in the conditions and means of
 naval warfare since the rules hither- to governing legal blockade were
 formulated. It might be ready to ad.
 init that the old form of close