Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-11-08


fral countries in Europe previously
had with the nations at war
2. Retenuons ~ Grr1t Britain
have not been uniformly based or
proofs obtained az the time oft seizure
but many vessels have been detained
while search was made Tor evidence
Tho question has been ono ~ eN
dence 90 support the belief 30 STU
many cases bare suspicion 81
enemy destination. or occasionally 90
enemy origin % the good. Involved
g. Attention d directed with re-
rard 20 search of neutral vessels at
sea 10 the Instructions issued 90 the
naval commanders OF the United
states. Great Britain, Russia, Japan.
spain. Germany and France from
1SsS to the beginning AZ the present
war o. show that search m port was
not contemplated by the government
~ any OF these countries"
T. An examination OF the opinion
~ the most eminent text writer's ON
the laws OF nations shows "that they
give practically no consideration to
the question Of search in port outside
81 examination ln the course ~ regu-
lar prize court proceedings
Ne American Precedent.
tI) Answering the assertion of
Great Britain that the position ~ thc
United states leo relation OF search at
sea Is Inconsistent with its practice
during the cyll war. the note says
this is based upon q "misconcept.on. 20
careful search OF the records
shows conclusively that there We're.
no Instances when vessels were
brought into port for search prior 90
insttutIng prize court proceedings
and that captures were not made
upon other grounds than evidence
found on the ship under investigation,
end not upon circumstances nsccr-
taihed from external sources 1t isl
here that Secretary Lansing appends
copy of the Instructions issued toi
American naval officers on AUGUST
Is.tsCg
90 In answer 20 the British con
tenti0n that conditions relating tol
the slze and seaworthness Of mod !
efn carriers justify bringing vessels
into port. there il cited the report of
4 board Of United states naval ex
ptfts. just made. IN which Il is de-
clared TINT II Is not necessary 20 re-
move EVERY package OF a ships ear
10" 70 establish the character and
NATURE Of her trade that the facill- /
tea for boarding and inspection Of
modern ships are In fact greater than
ia former times, and that 10 permit /
ships 70 be taken into port would be
a direct aid TO the belligorents con-
cerhed IN that IL would release a
helligefent vessel oyerhauling the
neutral from its duty Of search ana
set Il free for further belligereut op I
efationA"
prize Court Proceedings Unjust
a. and % These points deal
with new procedures IN the prize
courts. the effect OF which the Unit |
"a states complains Is "t0 subject
traders 10 risk or loss, delay and ex-
penae 30 great and burdensome as 10
practically destroy much Of the eN-
port trade OF the United states 70
neutral countries OF Europe
GO. I'D These discuss the ques-
ton Of burden Of proof as 90 the non
caniraband ~ goods consigned TO
order" the United states arguing that
none Of The cnRes cited BY Great Brit
ain proves that the burden of proof /
can rightly be made to rest upon the
claimants
ti2) The greatly increased Inn
ports OF neutral countries adjoining
Great nrltain's enemies cannot BE
accepted as laying down just or
leaal rule Of evidence" that commod-
tiles ara detained Tor re-exportotion
10 the belllgerents such a rule. IL
Is argued, "offers too great oppor
tunlty for abuse by belligerents,' ana
N opposed 90 "thoHc fundamental
principles Of justice which are the
foundation OF the Jurisprudence of the
United States and Great Britain.
Increase Or Exports Explained.
GO Attention is directed to the
faot that GreBt Britain admits thut
her exports to neutral countries have
also materially increased since the
present war began. "Thus Great
Britain" says The note. "concodedly /
shares IN creating q condition when (
Is relied upon as sufficient ground +
10 Justify the interrogation OF Amori- I
can goods destined 60 neutral Euro /
nean ports If British exports to
those ports should bee sim further In /
nreaaad Il IS obvious that under the
rule Of evidence contended fer hy the !
british government, the presumption
Of enemy destination could Dee ape I
piled 20 q greater number Of AmerI- /
can cargoes, and American trade T
would suffer 20 the extent that Brit /
ism trade benefited 10y the increase,
Great Britain cannot expect The Unit I
"a states 20 submit 20 such manifest I
Injustice or 90 permit the rights of [
its citizens 10 be- So seriously impair I
Cd"
(tD whatever may bee the cunJec- I
nrai conclusions drawn from trade
statistics, the United states "mam f
mina the fight TO sell Goods into inc
general stock of neutral country aud I
denounces as illegal and unlusuiIahle
any attempt of ~ benigergnt o. inter
fere with that right on the ground +
that il suspects that the previous sup /
ply OF such goods n the neutral coun
try which the imports renew of zee
place has been sold % an enemy /.
That is a matter with which the neu-
trial vendor has NO concern and which J
can 80 no way affect his rights of [.
trade Moreover. even " goods listed
a. conditional conrabund are des-