The Washington times., 1915-02-19
THE BLOCKADE ISSUE

Germany has said and reiterated
that it cannot assume responsibility
for unfortunate consequences that
may befall neutral merchant ships II
they enter the war zone around the
British Islands. The United States
has said it will hold Germany respon-
sible if misfortune befalls Ameri-
can ships or American lives in those
waters. Sugar-coat It as the Dip
lomats may with pretty phrases,
with ample assurance Of mutual
good will, with distinguished con-
sideration and elaborate tenders of
kindly sentiment, the fact remains
that the two countries have got to
the point where, with the German
blockade actually in effect, they are
not agreed what's going to be done
about it.
Not only this. The one suggestion
which Germany put forward looking
to safeguarding American ships in
the prescribed area was that they be
conveyed by American we rships.
This would amount to a guarantee
by the United States Government
that the cargoes were not CONTRA
band; if it should prove that con-
traband were contained in the car
goes, the United States Government
would in effect be placed in the posi-
tion of a blockade-runner. The Gov
ernment cannot on this account as
sumo responsibility for the acts of
ships under the American flag.
Moreover, blockade-running is not a
crime against any civil law; it is
merely an infraction Of the rules Of
war. 1t involves the property, not
the people who engage in it. The
owner or master of blockade rum
ming ship merely takes the chance of
getting through; he speculates on his
ability to fool the blockaders and
earn his profit in dangerous busi-
ness. But he incurs no moral
obloquy or social ignominy through
his effort.
So the United States says it can.
not consent to provide warships as
conveys in the danger zones. To dc
this would be to permit Germany tn
transfer the burden Of responsible.
ity from Germany to the United
States; and the United States stands
firm on it's original position of hold
ing Germany responsible if harm
comes to legitimate American ship
ping.
This is altogether a proper posi-
ton. In the first place, this Gov
eminent would look rather pusillani
nous if it accepted such a sugges
ton, and set it's naval forces at tn,
business of tending it's merchantmen
over the face of the waters to guart
them against nations with which w
are at peace. In the next place, tn
very guarantee of the character O.
the conveyed vessel would be a taci
admission that the ship without ,
convoy was engaged in unneutra
business and increase the probabil
ity of her identification as a block
ade runner and her condemnation
The United States Government ha
no particular business preventing it
venturesome citizens running block
AIDES, which as already observed i
not crime, but merely very risk,
speculation. These citizens mus
take the chances if they attempt run
ming a real blockade; but under tn
custom of war it must be a rea
blockade.
Germany has undertaken to main
tain that it has established a rea
blockade. A real blockade is on
supported by sufficient naval powe
to make it substantially impossibl
for vessels to get through. The tax
ing of an occasional vessel, while tn
vast majority get through, does nc
confirm the claim of a blockade. Tn
United States understands and ha
acquiesced in this principle; it wa
compelled to do so in the civil wa
when at first only three or four Cor
federate ports were declared unde
blockade, because the North had nc
sufficient naval force to seal up an
more. Just as fast as vessels coul
be built, or bought and armed, tn
blockade area was extended by ful
ther proclamations. But the Unite
States never tried to insist on
blockade that was not effective, ar
it is quite unlikely now that eitht
this country or Great Britain wi
permit a mere proclamation blocl
ade to be enforced. 1t would be Sc
ting up rule of war practice whic
; in the modern commercial world, doir
many billions of foreign commerce
year, would threaten to wreck Il
| ,,,I,o ~ ;,1 ,,<n