The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-08-04
BRITISH CONTEND


leave open, routes By which even
Kind OF German commerce could pasS
almost easily az through the ports o.
her own territory.
Rotterdam Nearest
Rotterdam Is Indeed the nearest
outlet for some OF the Industrial dis
trcts OF Germany IL
seems accordingly that n Il be recoE.
nized that a blockade Is In certain
cases the appropriate method OF In
tercepting thet trade Of an enemy coun-
ny. and u The blockade can only be-
cone effective BY extending II TO en-
emy commerce passing through neu-
uai ports. such an extension Is de-
fenslble and In accordance with prin-.
eipies which have net with general
acceptance"
n note then refers 10 the case OF
me British ship S~pringbok. seized by
United States cruisers during the civ
war while bound for the British
west indies. because her cargo. Il was
charged, vas TO Be trans-shipped to
the Confederate states. The supreme
court OF the United states Sustained
the seizure against the condemnation
OF a group OF prominent international
lawyers. although the United States
and British governments took the
broader view and recognized the de-
velopment OF the older method OF
blockade. No protest IA made by
Great Britain.
What Is really important. In the
general interest" says the note. Is
n 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. II is also essential that
all Unnecessary injury TO neutrals
should DO avoided. With these condi.
lions II may be safely affirmed that
the steps we are taking to intercept
commodities or their way TO and from
Germany fully comply. We are inter
fering with no goods with which we
should not be entitled to interfere BY
blockade II the geographical position
and h conditions OF Germany at
present were such that her commerce
passed through her own ports. We
are taking the utmost possible care
not 10 interfere with commerce genu-
nell destined for or proceeding from
neutral countries. FURTHERMORE. we
have tempered the severity with
which our measures might press upon
neutrals by not applying the rule
which our measures In the old form
OF blockade. that ships and goods on
their way TO or from the blockaded
area are liable TO condemnation"
Reviews Forms Of Blockade.
The note then reviews at some
length he various forms in which
blockades have been maintained TO
show there has been no uniformity Of
practice in very essential points. and
declares.
The only principle which IL funda.
mental and has obtained universal
recognition. Is that by means OF block
ade a belligerent is entitled TO cut on
by effective means the sea-borne com
merce OF his enemy"
Consequently, Sir Edward argues
II 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 in the Ameri-
can notes OF the subject.
There are cases." he says, "in
which proofs hat the goods were
enemy property would aford strong
evidence that they were OF enemy
origin or enemy destination and IL is
only In such cases that We are detain.
Ing them Where proof OF enemy
ownership would afford no evidence OF
11Na VI AfHAAAAhAANlls We are not
In practice OF OBTAINING the goods"
Sir Edwards note closes with the
observation that Figures OF recent
months show that the increased op-
portunities afforded by the war for
American commerce have more than
compensated for the loss OF the Ger
man and Austrian markets. . ..
We shall continue 10 supply these
measures with every desire 10 oc-
casion the least possible amount OF in
convenience 20 persons engaged in
legitimate commerce.
The Supplemental Note.
In the supplemental note. which is
a reply TO the American caveta giving
notice that the United States would
not recognize the orders in council in
lieu OF International law, Sir Edward
Grey writes he does mot understand
to what divergence OF views as 10 the
! principles OF law applicable I'm case.
before the prize court. the government
OF the United States refers. for I am
not aware Of any differences existing
between the two countries as 10 the
principles OF law applicable in cases
before such courts"
Sir Edward compares the rules gov
erning British prize courts 10 the
rules applied by American courts. re
ferrinE especially to the American
case OF the Amy Warwick before the
United States Supreme court where q
was held that prize courts are subject
TO the instructions OF their own sover.
eign. Tn the absence OF such instruc.
lions their Jurisdiction and rules Of
decision are to be ascertained BY re-.
ference 10 the known powers Of such
tribunals and the principles BY witch
they are governed under the public
law and the practice Of nations. 10
would appear therefore. that the prin-.
ciples applied by the prize courts Of
Nhe two countries are identical"
The supplemental note then pro
ceeds with a long legal argument o..
demonstrate the -pracucabuity Of a|
prize court being governed by intcrna
uonal law and az the same time bv.
municipal law in the form Of orders boz.
council u finally comes To- the case
or the steamer Zamora. in the present
war. In which the British court d.
Clarcd
The nations of the world need not
Do arpreheuf Ave that orders in council
WiI omanato from the government of
ihlH country in such violation Of tho
acknowIodFed laws OF nations that DO
p conceivable that our prize tribunal.
holding tho law OF nations in ravor
rmTn. would feel rnfrnr rfrrn o.. al.