The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-08-04

asdSinst oz. Aug z-s-Irl lsth1>ee notes made public at the State Departmen last might Great Britain attempts to Justify her Interferences with Ameri- can trade in connecion with the so- called blockade Of Germany.
 These three communications. to- gether with two notes from the United States on the same subject, constitute a afreei chapter in the British A m eri- can trade controversy arising out Of the European war.
 The documents for the first time clearly define the issues between the United States and Great Britain. They show each Of the governments profess ing and insisting on the strictest ad- herence to the same principles of in aernationa1 law while sharply disa- greeing on the question whether cer- ta1n measures are in conformity with 1hese principles
 The United States insists upon the sarsternatfonal irvalfdfty,'' of the prac- tice Of detadnfng goods shipped from ia neural port to the United States on &hs ground that they are of German origin and demands that non-contrat- ifband goods from this country be per Eanitted to pass freely to Germany when country.
 Great Britaan's View.
 Great Britain attempts to show that
 
 and from neutral ports are leg1timate- 1v derived from the principle of the fxieht of bloekades g. he asserts that sf1s 1s dofng only what the United States aia in he eiv1l war that is adapdIng the told principles of block to the peculiar czEcurrstances of &he present war.
 Fl is admitted here that tine British a gu1nents are for the most part able and ingenious~ particil larly in their slp- <@cSf711l 3n the civil war and American prize ico1il4 decisions in the civil war cases e6 the defence sof practices against which the United State is now com blaming. ssN@ 94sA ss
 ThaEsqaT atdons from 4ize Lon don Foreign 0ffice are n1arketlly diff I ferenE fno1i1 tI1e 93fItEsh sndtes of last vrirSfse4s3iazz the same and &lated sub-l 3ects in that they ar aln1ost wholly i legal arguments and contain little of the extraneous matter sof fpr1ner notes.
 Itis believed here that the British authorities hay at least come to m derstand soInething pf the American point or view and to recognize the ne-s cessity of meeting the American. pro tests. which are based on tl1as govern naentss reading of the law with a de- fence which will commend itself to 2 legal view of the sftuation
 Seen as Hszeuses
 
 OmeiaIsssilr. Eassaaz on regard the British statements as weakened, how egser by certain references to Ger eonduct fneatioued by Great Britain as ratification of her policies If is cit that Great Britain h as to an estert lowered her case toward the level Of the position sof tserIEla ny, in go Tar as she cites German violations of g as excuse for her own acts.
 Jn7ike the e serxna an goveTI1u1enfs however, fhe Britfsll are csIsef ul not to go sa far as to aeIrnit that their l0lock- ade is 5 prlsal and therefore with out basis in Iasws on the contrary, ey contend that 1t is a. 1e sally sjusti fable measure for melting Gernanyfs Illegal acts.
 to intimate ehat as long as ueutrals tolerate the German stsb11aT inc war fare Great Britain ought mot to be pressed to on measure under taken in conseauence of the spbrnar- inc campaign
 efm1nent has already sharply repudiat- ef Tn corresp ondences with Germany on the submarine issue, There is no douht that the same treaAllealf wi II be sLfordea tss azs Ieg 2 si,sailar plea on The ss3hat as the is gu United states IS one of law 45IEed States sl1eaId be con feIa Is aNga5 5ta d5eia1 inteEpr etation of Brfisa tlls pTiz courts now
 thEf ssfsTaI tae courts deeldE ct5fy te Araeri- can axerezxs se71e E peal to the Prvy and bat sthe decis- ion of court is ssilI 1lIlss tisfactory &faey may Invoke the aid of fhefr Cove ernmeHt totard effectfng an arrange Snent sS " hich the cases in dispute may he referred toz an international triBi E for review as was done by the t1nifed States and Great Britain 1n he civil ar cases
 t is declared that at any time any .A1nerIcAn claimant may challenge be fore the prize court the existing or dsrs in council on the ground thai they are fneonsisteEt with the princi- pies of international 1aws Tn this confectfon the British Government makes the foI1owing state m ent, the only one in all the correspo ndence of 4er1hg any remedy to Americans.
 zz,. --zff341ese-r1ea asures
 has not yst forG1ed1the s8lB5ect Of decision of the prize court: but
 wish to take this opportunity of
 reminding your Ezxcellency that it
 s open to any United States citi-
 zen whose claim is before the
 prize court to- contend that any
 order in council which may affect
 his claim Is inconsistent with the
 principles of international law and
 is therefore. not binding upon
 the court
 If he prize court declines to
 accept his contentious, and if, af-
 ter such a decision has been up-
 held on appeal by the Judicial
 comulfttee Of his Ma jestyss Privy
 Council, the Government of the
 Unfted States Consider that there
 Is serious ground for holding that
 the decision incorr ect, and
 1nfrfnges tie rights of their citi-s
 zenss # is open to them to claim that t should be subjected to re-