New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-03
PACKERS URGE
u. S. PROTEST
Meat Seizures Unlawful,
Says Appeal for Diplo-
matte Action.
BRITISH BLOCKADE
CALLED INEFFECTIVE
Washington Likely to Await Re-
view by Privy Council-Salis'
bury Precedent Cited.
rrron II, rr.bun, Burc,u J


Washington. Oct. Q -Declaring that
the seizure by Great Britain Of twenty
nine carrocs Of meat products was "un-
lawful ard an infringement Of the
rights OF American citizens" attorneys
Tor five Chicago packing houses filed
request with the State Department to-
day Tor diplomatic action "to obtain for
the packers redress Of past seizures
and an opening Of neutral ports to the
same freedom Of trade which this coun-
try enjoyed with those ports prior TO
the war"
As the packers representatives 20
eeived copy OF the decision Of the
British Prize Court on four Of the car
goes only yesterday. they did not IN
elude them in their protest. In
statement tonight. however, they de-
clared they would ask the government
70 make the Prize Court judgment the
subject Of diplomatic representations,
without awaiting an appeal 70 the
Privy Council.
at appears from a hurried reading
Of the Prize Court decision says the
statement. chat its judgment is based
on British Orders in Council or mu
nicipai regulations, which are contrary
70 the established principles Of inter
national law"
Must Use Law Remedies.
officials here Go not believe, how
ever. that the State Department will
make q diplomatic protest 70 Great
Britain against the decision until the
cases have been reviewed by the Privy
Council. The State Department has al
ready expressed the opinion that the
packers, having acknowledged the Jur-
isdiction fthe British courts On the
first instance, must exhaust the legal
remedies before resorting TO diplomacy.
The State Department has taken the
Of. cr twenty-nine cases under advise
ment, and with the return of Secretary
Lansing TO Washington tomorrow they
will be carried 10 the President. In
view Of opinions expressed by officials
as 10 the action Of the prize court IN
the four cases recently judged, II is
regarded as certain that the United
States will enter an emphatic protest
against referring any more such cases
20 the British courts, but viii insist
upon making use of the case 10 test
the fundamental legality of the whole
British campaign against trade with
ncutrais
The packers base their case on Ire
ground that Great Britain has no au-
'hority in international law for inter
ruptinc commerce with neutral ports.
no matter what the nature Of the
goods. They refer 10 numerous prece-
dents. and cite the opinions Of emil
nent British authorities in support OF
their contentious.
"lt is long established fundamen
fal principle OF international law,
says the statement presented ia. the
State Department, that condlloLal
cou.raband bound for neutral poT-
in "a neutral vessel Is not subject 10
seizure. and Great Britain had de-
clarcd foodstufFs 10 be conditional cor
traband This is the principle upheld
with especial stress by the British
government. when that government has
been a neutral
Boer War Opinion Quoted
During the Boer war Lord Salisbury
stated the position of the British gov
eminent itEdlNluk INC nv NiAN"N -
foodstufs 20 the Beers, as follows:
'Foodstufs with a hostile destina-
ton can be considered contraband OF
war only II they are supplies for the
encmy's forces. IL is not sufficient
that they are capable Of beng so used;
n must be shown that this was IN fact
their destination at the time OF seiz-
ure.'"
The attorneys declare that the goods
In question were consigned, according
20 the British regulations, TO spe-
cihc person. and that there was not
the slightest basis for a suspicion that
they were intended for German con-
sumption On the contrary, il is point
ed out. that all the neutral countries
10 which the cargoes were consigned
had laid embargoes on their eXporta-
tior.
Discussing the legality Of the Brit
ish blockade ordained in the Order in
Council of March II, the protest as
scrts as a principle of international
law that a blockade to be legal must
be effective and impartial, and points TO
the uninterrupted sea commerce OF the
Scand .navian countries with Germany
as demonstrating the unfair discrim
ination as between the United States
ard the Scandinavian countries and
the weakness Of the British contention
that the blockade is effective.
cit is American trade 20 neutral ports
that is being interfered with" says
Nfhn statement: at is American ports
and neutral ports that are being block
aided"