The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-04

ports In her own territory Rotter-
Gam IL indeed the nearest outlet for
some of the industrial districts of Ger
many.
SO. As a counterpoise to the Free
| dom with which one beiligerent may
send his commerce across a neutral
country without compromising its
neutrality, the other belligerent may
fairly claim to intercept such COM
merce before II has reached, or after
II has left, the neutral state, provided,
LOT course. that he can establish that
the commerce with which he interfere
/ 10 tie commerce OF his enemy, and not
commerce which Is bona flde, destin-
ed for or proceeding from the neutral
state. It seems accordingly. that IL
It be recognized that q blockade IL In
certain cases the appropriate method
of fntercepting the trade of an enemy
country, and II the blockade can only
become effective by extending II to
lenemy commerce passing through
neutral ports, such an extension Is
Idefensible and in accordance with
principles which have met with gem
Ieral acceptance.
Refer to Springbolx Case.
10. To the contention that such
action is not directly supported by
written authority, 1t may be replied
that 1t Is the business of writer's on
international law to formulate exist
ing rules rather than to offer sugges-
lions for their adoption to altered cir
cumstances and Your Excellency viii
remember the unmeasured terms in
which a group Of prominent interna-
itional lawyers Of all nations condemn
ed the doctrine which had been laid
down by the Supreme Court OF the
United States In the case OF the
Springbok. doctrine upheld by the
claims Committee at washington IN
i1s73 But the United States and the
British Governments took broader
view and looked below the surface at
the underlying principles. and the
Government of this country, whose
nationals were the sufferers by the
extension and development OF the old
methods OF blockade made by the
United States during the Civil War.
abstained from all protest against the
decisions by which the ships and their
Icargoes were condemned.
should Avoid Unnecessary Injury.
I'll What Is really important in the
general interest is that adaptations of
the old rules should not be made un-
less they are consistent with the gen
erai principles upon which an admit
tied beligerent right Is based. 1t Is also
essential that all unnecessary injury to
ineutrais should be avoided. with
these conditions II may be safely on
their way to or from Germany ruiiy
comply We are interfering with no
goods with which we should not be en-
titled to interfere by blockade If the
xeogra phicai position and the condi-
lions of Germany at present were such
that her conerce passed through ner
lsown ports We are taking the utmost
possible care not to interfere with
commerce genuinely destined for or
proceeding from neutral countries.
Furthermore. we have tempered the
severity with which our measures
might press upon neutrals by not ap-
plying the rule which was invariable
lin the old form of blockade that ships
and goods on their way to or from the
bIockaded area were liable to con-
domination.
"a The communication by the United
States embassy on the I'd of April de-
scribes as a novel and quite unprece-
dented feature OF the blockade that II
embraces many neutral ports and coasts
and has the effect OF barring access 20
them. II does not appear that our
measures can be properly SO described
! II we are successful In the efforts we
are making TO distinguish between the
commerce of neutral and enemy coun-
tries there will be no substantial inter
| ference with the trade of neutral ports.
except in so far they constitute ports
of access 20 and exit from the enemy
territory. There are at this moment
many neutral ports which IL would be
mere afTeetatton to regard as Offering
facilities only for the commerce of the
neutral country In which they are situ-
ated, and the only commerce with
which we propose to interfere is that
OF the enemy who seeks to make use
of such ports for the purpose of transit
TO or from his own country.
| "is. One of the earlier passages In
Your Exceilency's memorandum, which
was TO the effect that the sovereignty
of neutral nations in time of war suf-
| fers no diminution except In so far rs
the practice and consent or civilized
nations has limited IL by the recogni-
ton of certain now clearly determined
/ rights which IL Is considered may he
exercised by nations at war, and these
IL defines as the right of capture and
condemnation for unneutral service for
the carriage of contraband. and for
| breach OF blockade. I may. however,
| be permitted to point out that the
practice Of nations on each of the three
| subjects mentioned has not at any
time been uniform or clearly deter
mined, nor has the practice OF any
maritime nation always been eonsis-
tent
E8FttTukHE8 OF nsWCkMu& k-tmns
"a. There are various particulars In
which the exact method of carrying
blockade into effect has from time to
time varied. The need of 4 public no.
tification. the requisite standard of eff
fectiveness, the locality of the block
aiding squadrons. the right of the In
dividual ship TO a preliminary warning
that the blockade is in force. and the
penalty to be inflicted on a captured
blockade runner, are all subjects on
which different views have prevailed
In different countries Ia which the
practice OF particular countries has
been altered from time to time. The
one principle which is fundamental ana
has obtained universal recognition Is
that by means OF blockade a belligerent
Ia entitled to cut of by effective means
the sea-borne commerce of his enemy.
els. II is the same with fcontrabani.
The underlying principle lis well cstao
iished, but as to the details there has
been a wide variety of view. As for
unneutral servfce--the very term Is of
such recent introduction that many
writer's of repute on international law
do not even mention tit Is impossible
in the view of His Majestys govern
ment in these circumstances to main
tain that the right OF belligerent TO
intercept the commerce OF his enemy IL
Il 49, Ia