The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-03-18

batants, but also on the neutrals These
evils may easily be Increased by the
Interference of a neutral power which
the way In which third carries on the
war to the disadvantage Of the sub
jects of the interfering power and by
this means German commerce might be-
weighted with far heavier losses than
a transitory prohibition of the rice
trade In Chinese waters. The meas.
ure in question has for it's object the
shortening of the war by increasing
tho difficulties of the enemy. and Is
tustihable step In war II impartialIy
enforced against all neutral ships"
Quotes Count Caprivt.
Count Oaprivi. during d discussion In
the German Reichstag on the 4th OF
March. 1899. on the subject of the i'm
portance of international protection
for private property at sea, made the
following statements:
"A country may be dependent for
her food or for her raw product upon
her trade. In fact. 1t may be abso-
lutely necessary to destroy the en-
emys trade" The private
introduction of provisions into Paris
was prohibited during the siege. and
in the same way "a nation would be
justified in preventing the import of
food and raw produce"
The Government of Great Britain
have frankly declared In concert with
the Government of France, their in
tention to meet the German attempt
to stop all supplies of every kind
from leaving or entering British or
French ports by themselves stopping
supplies going to or from Germany
for this end. The British feet has
instituted a blockade effectively con-
trolling by cruiser Gordon" all pas
sage to and from Germany by sea.
The difference between the two poll
cies Is. however, that while our OBJ
ject la the same az that OF Germany,
we propose to attain IL without sacri-
fcing neutral ships or noncomba Blatant
lives, or infficting on neutrais the
damage that must be entailed when
vessel and its cargo are sunk with
out notice, examination or trial.
must emphasize again that this mea-
sure Is a natural and necessary con-
seque,t,e OF the unprecedented
methods repugnant to all law and
morality which have been described
above which Germany began to
adopt at the very outset of the war
and the effects OF which have bcen
constantly accommodating.
(signed) American Ambassador,
London.
Americas Ideutic Inquiry.
Number ". American identio note
OF inquiry addressed by the United
States to France and Great Britain,
asking a more definite statement OF
just what operations are intended In
enforcement of allies. policy OF cutting
of all trade with Germany and calling
attention to the extra legal character
OF the proposed operations. This In
auiry was sent soon after Great BTt-
tain's preliminary announcement OF her
intention to shut OF all foodstuffs from
Germany and before the above reply
to the joint suggestions of the United
States had been received:
The Secretary of state to the Amerf-
can ambassador at London. (Telegram.l
Department of State. Washington,
March 5. 1915.
In regard to the recent communtca-
tons received from the British and
French government concerning re-
straints upon commerce with Germany,
please communicate with the British
foreign office In the sense following:
The difficulty OF determining action
upon the British and French declara-
tions of intended retaliation upon COM
msrce with Germany lies in the nature
OF the proposed measure In their rela-
tion to commerce by neutrals
While 1t appears that the intention Is
to interfere with and take into Gus
tody all ships. both outgoing and in
coming. trading with Germany. which
IL in effect a blockade of German
ports the rule OF blockade. that a ship
man port regardless of the character
OF it's cargo. may be condemned, is not
asserted.
The language of the declaration In
the British and French governments
will. therefore. hold themselves free
to detain and take into port ships
carrying goods OF presumed enemy dss-
tination. ownership or origin. 1t In
not intended to confscate such vessels
or cargoes unless they would other
wise be liable to condemnation"
An Inconsistent Position.
The first sentence claims a right
pertaining only to "A state OF block
AIDE. The last sentence proposes
treatment of ships and cargoes IA II
no blockade existed. The two to-
gether present proposed course OF
action previously unknown to inter-
national law. AS a consequence aeu-
trails have no standard by which to
measure their rights. or to avoid dan
ger to their ships and cargoes. The
paradoxicai situation thus created
should be changed and the declaring
powers ought to assert whether they
rely upon the rules governing q
blockade, or the rules applicable
when no blockade exists.
The declaration presents other per-
plexities. -.
The last sentence quoted indicates
that the rights of contraband are to
be applied to cargoes detained. The
rule covering eontraband articles car
ried in neutral bottoms is that thu.
cargoes shall be released and the
ships allowed to proceed. This rule
cannot under the first sentence quot
ed be applied as to destination. What
then is to be done with a cargo Of
contraband goods detained under tina
declaration? The same question may
be asked as to conditional contrabAad
cargoes.
Yet Another Problem.
The foregoing comments apply to
cargoes destined for Germany. Car
goes coming out OF German ports pre-
sent another problem under the terms
Poe the declaration. Under the rules
governing enemy exports only goods
owned by enemy subjects In enemy
bottoms are subject to seizure and
condemnation. Yet by the deciara-
tion II Is purposed to seize and take
into port all goods OF enemy owner
ship and origin" The word origin"
lis particularly significant. The origin
of goods destined to neutral territory