Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-03-18
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN WASHINGTON.
LONDON AND BERLIN
Continued From Page rwol


or with the way in which. third
carries on the war Co the disdyan-
tage of the subjects of the interior
ing power and hN this means Ger
man commerce might he weighted
with far heavier lessee, than transit
tory prohibition of he rice trade i'm
Chinese waters The measure in
has fer It's object short
enng of the war by increasing the
of the enemy and is a
iustifiahle step I'm war if impartklly
enforced against an neutral ships
Count Capn,fs Position.
"Count CaprlyL during "A discussion
In the German reichstag ON the
fourth of March, 1899. ON the subject
of the importance of international
for private property at
sea made the following statements
a country may be dependent for her
food or for her raw products upon
her trade. I'm fact 10 may hc auso-
luteN necessary 20 destroy the enc
mvs trade. The private introduction
of provisions into Paris was prohih-
tied during the siege, and In the sJWo
way a nation would Doe Justified in
preyenting the import of food and
raw produce Tho government of
Great Britain have frankly declared
In concert. with the government of
France their intention TO meet the
German attempt u stop all supplies
of every kind from leaving on en-
teriug British or French ports pN
themselves stopping supplies going to
or from Germany for this end The
British fleet has instituted block
al
Gordon all passage to and from
Germany by sea-. The difference be-
tween the two policies is, however
that while our object rs the same as
that of Germany We propose to at
tain Il without sacrificing neutral
ships or non-combataut lives or in
nictinr upon neutrals The damage
that must be cntailcd when Vessei
and its cargo are sunk without mo-
tiee. examination or trial. ] must
again that this measure is
n natural and necessary consequence
of the Unprecedented methods rcpuE-
naut to all law aud morality, which
have been described above, which
Germany began to adopt at the very
outset of the war and the effects of
which have been constantly accum-
ulatng'
american Ambassador, London.
The American government trans
mitted identical messages of inquiry
to the ambassadors at London and
Paris. muuiring from both England
and France how the declarations IN
the Anglo-Frcnch note proolaiminE an
embargo on all commerce between
Germany and neutral countries were
to be carried into effect.
Famous Identical Notes,
The message to London was as fol-
lows:
Washington. March @, 1918.
"In regard to the recent Communi-
cations received from the British
and French governments concerning
restraints upon commerce with Ger
many. please communicate with the
British office in the sense following.
THE difficulty of obtaining action
upon the British and French declara-
lions of intended retaliation upon
commerce with Germany lies in the
nature of the proposed measures in
their relation to commerce by neu-
trails.
while il appears that the intention
is to interfere with and take into
custody All ships, both outgoing and
which is in effect blockade Of Ger
man ports. the rule Of blockade that
a ship attempting to enter or leave a
German port regardless of the charac-
ter of it's cargo may be condemned, Is
not asserted.
The language of the declaration is
the British and French governments
will therefore hold themselves free to
detain ana take into port ships car
ryng goods of presumed enemy des-
tination, ownership or origin. II is not
intended to confiscate such vessels
or cargoes unless they would other
wise be liable to condemnation
THE FIRST sentence claims q right
pertaining only to a state of blockade.
The last sentence proposes treat
mcnt of ships and careoes as If no
blockade existed, The two together
present a proposed course of action
previously unknown to international
law.
AS a consequence neutrals have no
standard by which to measure their
rights or to avoid danger to their
ships and cargoes. The paradOXical
situation thus created should be
changed, and the declaring powers
ought to assert whether they rely
upon the rules governing a blockade
or the rules applicable when no
blockade exists
PcrplcNitics Presented
"rhc declaration presents other
perplexities The last sentence quoted
indicates that the rules of conuaband
are to be applied to the cargoes de
tanned. The rule covering uon-cou-
traband articles carried in neutral
bottoms is that the careoes shall be
released ard the ships allowed to pro-
ceed This rule cannot under the
first sentence quoted, be applied as
to destination What, then Is to be
done with cargo Of non-eontraband
goods detained under the declaration?
The same question may be asked as
to conditional contraband clrgoos
The foregoing comments apply to
Cargoes destined for Germany Car
goes coming out Of German ports pre-
sent another problem under the terms
Of the declaration. Under the rules
governing enemy exports only goods
owned by enemy subjects i'm enemy
bottoms are subject to seizure and
condemnation Yet by the dcclara
ton it is pu1posed to seize and take
into port all goods Of enemy owner
ships and origin. The word origin
is particulars significant The ori-
gin of goods destined to neutral terri
tory on neutral ships is not and
never had been ground for forfeit
ure, except I'm case blockade is de
clared and maintained what then
would the seizure amount To- in the
present ease except TO delay the de-
livery of the goods. The declaration
does not indicate what disposition
would be made Of such cargoos if
owned by an enemy subject. Would a