New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-26
The British Memorandum.


enforcement Of the Order in Council the
British Government makes no attempt TO
argue disputed questions Of international
law. The protest Of the United States
against the irregularities of the procedure
adopted under the order is not answered.
Great Britain avoids trying further to
reconcile with neutral rights, as guar
anteed by the law of nations, her virtual
embargo on American trade to and from
Germany and her interference with inno-
cent American trade with neutral coun-
tries adjacent to Germany.
The British communication is thor
oughly polite and painstaking account of
the measures employed to minimize the
inconvenience TO American shippers Of
the restrictions imposed on neutral com
merce. 1t manifests a spirit of accom-
mediation and good will in executing a
novel and irregular programme, which
does not rest on recognized belligerent
rights, but is based chiefly on military
necessity" So far as it goes, the memo
randum shows a praiseworthy solicitude
10 make the enforcement Of the blockade,
embargo or whatever else the restraint
On neutral commerce may be called as
little burdensome as possible to American
interests.
The policy outlined in the Order in
Council is an innovation in naval war
fare, and from the point Of view Of the
neutral nations it is highly desirable to
have its obscurities cleared up and its in
Engagements on international rights, so
far as those can be successfully estab-
Gshed. abandoned. The situation is high
" confused, because in the Order in Coun-
ell the right of blockade is entangled with
the right to seize contraband of war des-
tined 70 the enemy, and these two rights
are both being asserted in a novel and
pulling manner.
If a blockade exists, it is not being
maintained and enforced in the usual way,
and neutrals are profting greatly by the
leniency with which cargoes seized under
l. are being treated. On the other hand,
the blockade or embargo extends to neu-
trail ports like those Of Holland, Norway,
Sweden and Denmark, and Great Britain
is applying to neutral goods going to those
countries and to German goods going
through them to neutrals an advanced
doctrine of ultimate destination and pri-
mary origin.
The United States during the Civil
War applied the doctrine of continuous
voyage and ultimate destination to neu-
trail goods shipped TO the Bahamas but
obviously intended to be reshipped in
blockade runners to ports of the Southern
Confederacy. Yet our Supreme Court
also held that neutral goods not contra
band Of war could not be seized when des-
tined TO Matamoros, a Mexican port on
the Rio Grande River, opposite Browns
vile, Tex. Our own record in establish
ing a partial extension of blockade
rights therefore embarrasses us to some
extent in protesting against further ex-
tension of bellgerent rights at sea by
Great Britain. Yet there are features in
the Order in Council programme to which
this country has never assented and which
il is fully entitled TO ask Great Britain to
discuss with a view 70 their abandonment
or modification.
There is vast difference, however, be-
tween this issue with Great Britain and
the issue raised with Germany by the tor
pedoing Of the Lusitania. Germany does
not pretend 10 be enforcing a blockade Of
British ports. Our vessels are entitled to
enter those ports, and American citizens
taking passage on unarmed enemy mer-
chantmen are entitled TO the protection
given 20 non-combatants by the existing
rules Of warfare at sea, if the merchant
men on which they sail are attacked by
German naval vessels.
Germany took the lives Of American
non-combatants on the Lusitania in plain
violation of the guarantees of interna-
tional law. Great Britain does not
threaten the lives Of neutrals engaged,
rightly or wrongly, in trade in contraven-
ton Of the Order in Council. She i'm
poses at the most a pecuniary penalty in
the shape of delay and prize court pro-
ceedings, and she offers in practically all
cases to purchase the goods which she
holds up in transit to Germany or to neu-
trail countries adjacent TO Germany.
That sort of infringement of neu-
trail rights is open 10 debate. 1t involves
no savagery, no inhumanity; no slaughter