New Britain herald., 1915-08-04
BRITAIN REJECTS PROTESTOF
 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT
England, in Three Replies, Holds She Is Within terna- tonal Law in Her Interference With Neutral
 Commerce for Germany.

miles of coast with small number of vessels. and recalls how the United States finally took recourse to block ading "neighboring neutral territory which afforded convenient centers from which contraband could be in- traduced into Confederate territory and from which blockade running could be facilitated.
 Your excellency will no doubt re- member" wrote Sir Edward, ''how in order to meet this new difficulty, the old principles relating to contra band and blockade were developed and the doctrine of continuous voy- age was applied and enforced, under which goods destined for the enemy territory were intercepted before they reached the neutral ports from which they were to be re-exported.
 The difficulties which imposed up- on the United States tAe necessity of re-shaping some of the old rules are somewhat akin to those with which the Allies are now faced in dealing with the trade of their enemy. Ad- jacent to Germany are various neu- tral countries which afford her con- venient opportunities for carrying on her trade with foreign countries. Her own territories ae covered by net work of railways and waterways which enable her commerce to pass as conveniently through ports in such neutral countries as through her own blockade limited to enemy ports would leave open. routes by which every kind of German commerce could pass almost as easily as through the ports in her own territory.
 Rotterdam is indeed the nearest outlet for some of the industrial dis tricts of Germany. It seems accordingly that if it be recognized that blockade is in certain cases the appropriate method of intercept ing the trade of an. enemy country and if the blockade can only become effective by extending it to enemy commerce passing through neutral ports, such an extension is defensi- ble and in accordance with principles which have met with general accept ance"
 Seizure Was Sustained.
 The note then refers to the case of the British ship Springbok, seized by United States cruisers during the Civil War while bound for the Brit ish West Indies, because her cargo, it was charged, was to be trans-shipped to the Confederate states. The su- preme court of the United States sus- tained the seizure against the con- demnation of a group of prominent international lawyers, although the United States and British govern ments took the broader view and rec ognized the development Of the old CT method of blockade No protest was made by Great Britain
 What is really important, in the general interest" says the note, "is that adaptations of the old rules should not be made unless they are consistent with the general principle upon which an admitted belligerent right is based. It is also essential that all unnecessary injury to neu- trals should be avoided. With these conditions it may be safely affirmed that the steps we are taking to inter- cept commodities on their way to and from Germany fully comply. We are interfering with no goods with which we should not be entitled to interfere by blockade if the geographical posi- tion and the conditions of Germany at present were such that her commerce passed through her own ports. We are taking the utmost possible care not to interfere with commerce gen. timely destined for or proceeding from neutral countries Further more, we have tempered the severity with which our measures might press upon neutrals by not applying the rule which was invariable in the old form of blockade that ships and goods on their way to or from the blockaded area are liable to condem- nation.''
 The note then reviews to some length the various forms in which blockades have been maintained to show there has been no uniformity of practice in very essential points, and declares:
 The one principal which is fun damental and has obtained universal recognition is that by means of blockade belligerent is entitled to cut off by effective means the sea borne commerce of his enemy
 Impossible To Limit Right
 Consequently, Sir Edward argues it is impossible to maintain that the right of a belligerent to intercept the commerce of his enemy can be limit ed in the way suggested by the American notes on the subject.
 There are many cases" he says, Tin which proofs that the goods were enemy property would afford strong evidence that they were of enemy origin or enemy destination and it is only in such cases that we are de- taining them. Where proof of enemy ownership would afford no evidence of such origin or destination we are not in the practice of detaining the goods
 Sir Edwards note closes with the observation that Figures of recent