The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-07-31

Washington, July 2S.-Defense of
the right of belligerents to blockade
neutral port through which an en-
emy is receiving supply or attempt.
ing to market his own products is the
chief argument that will be made in
the supplemental note Great Britain
is preparing in reply to the American
protest against the enforcement of
the orders in council. The original
note received last Monday has been
withheld from publication at the re-
quest of the British foreign office,
pending the arrival of the supple
mental communication, expected
within a week.
All other issues than that of the
blockade of neutral ports, it is learn
ed, will be regarded by the British
government as subsidiary and proper
for later discussion. On recognition
tby neutral governments Of the prin-
ciple from the British viewpoint de-
! PSii"o @hC dDiilty ol DllilSerent,
which otherwise has established con-
troll Of the sea, to profit by the enor-
nous expenditure and sacrifice which
made possible the control. The mat
ter is all important in the British
view.
Two developments not discussed in
the original note will be taken up in
the supplemental communication
The first is the American caveat of
July II conveying the notification
that the United States would not rec
ognize the orders in council as a sub
}stitnte for provisions of international
law.
The second arose in connection
with the enforced unloading in Lon
don Of the cargo of the American
steamer Neches June "a. The ship
was en- route from Rotterdam to New
York with n cargo of noncOntraband,
mostly of German and Belgian origin.
The British asserted the right under
their bic ckede of Germany and that
part Of Cci6ium at present under
German control to prevent any goods
from being exported, the sale of
which might aid the enemy fnan-
cially.
Because the principal British argu-
ment is directed to that phase Of the
right Of blockade which effects goods
sought to be introduced into an ene-
my country, it is believed the British
foreign office felt it necessary to sup
plement the original note by an argu-
ment extending the claim to cover
the case Of goods exported from the
enemy country through neutral
port
War of Secession procedents on
the right of billlgerents from the
chief basis of the British argument,
attention being separately called to
the famous SpringbOk case before
the United States supreme court de-
veloping the continuous voyage"
theory. Though this doctrine, which
it is asserted justified belligerent in
blocking neutral port, was strongly
resisted by European nations, the fact
that it was accepted by the Alabama
claims arbitration was sufficient to
make it an enduring principle of
n hn prit ic1~
Therefore the order in council, which
is believed by British officials to be
entirely in accord with that theory.
will continue to be applied, although
with due Difference to the protection
| of legitimate neutral trade.
Incidentally it is contended by
Great Britain in its communication
that the execution of these orders in
council SO far has not resulted in
any damage to American trade. Ac-
cording to British view that trade has
waxed enormously large since the be-
ginning of the war, American treas
ury figures showing an increase of
$500, 100000 in exports during II
months, while American ocean freight
has grown by 744, 900 tons.
Significant as indicating the amount
of American goods entering Germany
and Austria, attention is directed to
statements that American exports to
the Netherlands have increased from
$93, 100000 to 1922, 900, 900; to Swc-
den from $12,0O0,OOO to $1,000, 900;
to Norway from $7000,00O to $35,-
100000, and to Denmark from $13,-
600. 900 to $7O,OOO,OOO.
That America received a fair sup
ply of goods from Germany notwith-
standing the war is shown, the Brit
ish claim, by the fact that in eight